The Crystal Chemistry of As- and Sb-bearing Dumortierite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dumortierite samples from two pegmatite localities in Antarctica and one each in Germany and Russia show a range of As and Sb compositions (As + Sb + minor Bi = 0.001–0.212 apfu) and low Ta + Nb + Ti (0.001–0.079 apfu). Single-crystal diffraction data obtained from crystals from each sample refined to R 1 = 0.0161–0.0285, the latter value for a twinned crystal. Initial refinements of three of the four crystals showed considerable electron density at the Sb1 and Sb2 sites; however, the atoms at these sites are also highly anisotropic, and consequently the sites were split into distinct As1, Sb1, As2, and Sb2 positions. Such distinct As and Sb sites are not seen in the isostructural mineral holtite, which contains considerably more As and Sb (and Ta, Nb, and Ti). Initial refinements also showed that in all four crystals, the atom at the All site, with occupancies of 0.81–0.88, is highly anisotropic with most of the positional displacement in the a direction. The Al1 site was then split into Al1a, Al1, and Al1b positions, whose occupancies refined to All > Al1a > Al1b. The unequal occupancy of Al1a, Al1, and Al1b suggests that the hexagonal channel contains a disordered mix of face-sharing octahedron dimers, trimers and longer units separated by vacancies. A plot of Si + P apfu versus As + Sb + Bi apfu for 340 dumortierite and 627 holtite compositions shows no gap between the two minerals. Although there is a pronounced gap in terms of As and Sb occupancy, it separates dumortierite and Sb-poor holtite from Sb-bearing holtite. The continuum of compositions between dumortierite and holtite, and the discovery of very (As, Sb)-rich, (Ta, Nb)-poor compositions, suggest that the distinction between what has been called dumortierite and what has been called holtite should be reconsidered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".