Bond topology and structure-generating functions: graph-theoretic prediction of chemical composition and structure in polysomatic T–O–T (biopyribole) and H–O–H structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aspects of the bond topology and chemical composition of a mineral may be incorporated into a general formula by writing the local topological details of each cation and anion, along with their chemical identity, as a general expression called a structure-generating function. Here, this procedure is described for polysomatic T–O–T and H–O–H structures. We may write tetrahedrally coordinated cations and their associated anions as {T2nΘm}. For {T2nΘm} to be a chain or ribbon, 5n < m ≤ 6n, and we may write m as 5n + N, where N is an integer. Within the {T2nΘ(5n+N)}unit, we may recognize three types of anion vertices: (1) bridging anions, Θbr, that are bonded to two T cations; (2) apical anions, Θap, that are involved in linkage to other cations out of the plane of the bridging anions; and (3) linking anions, Θl, that link to non-T cations in the plane of the bridging anions. We may incorporate the connectivity of the cations in our algebraic representation of the chain as follows: {T2nΘbraΘapbΘlc} where a + b + c = 5n + N. The apical anions of the T- or H-sheets provide some anions of the layer of octahedra. We may use the handshaking di-lemma of graph theory to examine the interaction between the two types of layers, and write aStructure-Generating Function, S(N;n), that gives both the stoichiometry and aspects of the bond topology of the structures. Where N = 1, the T-sheet consists of ribbons of the form {T2nΘ(5n+1)} = {T2nΘbr(3n–1)Θap2nΘl2}. Each T–Θbr–T linkage spans an octahedron, and hence there are (3n – 1) octahedrally coordinated cations between opposing {T2nΘbr(3n–1)Θap2nΘl2} ribbons. There are an additional (n–1) vertices, Ψ, required to complete the coordination of the M cations on one side of the O-sheet, and we may write the structure-generating function for biopyriboles as follows: S(1;n)= Xi[M(3n–1)Ψ2(n–1){T2nΘbr(3n–1)Θap2nΘl2}2] = [M(3n–1)Ψ2(n–1){T2nΘ(5n+1)}2]. Where N = 2, the general form of the T-ribbon is {T2nΘ(5n+2)}, a component of the H-sheet in the polysomatic H–O–H minerals in which the T-ribbons are linked laterally by [5]- or [6]-coordinated high-valence cations, D, which have the coordination (Dφ41φapφt), where ftmay or may not be present depending on the coordination number, [6] or [5], of the D cation. The general formula for an H-sheet is [Dφap{T2nΘbr(3n–2)Θap2nΘl4}φt0–1], where φt(written after the T-sheet) occurs on the outside of the H-sheet and may be involved in linkage between adjacent H–O–H blocks. The H-sheet links via its apical anions to the O-sheet, giving the general formula of an H–O–H block as [M(3n+1)(DφapΨn{T2nΘ(5n+2)}φt0–1)2]. These H–O–H blocks may link directly or indirectly through the φt anions of the (DΘl4φapφt) octahedra, giving S(2;n)= Xi[M(3n+1)Ψ2n(D2φap2{T2nΘbr(3n–2)Θap2nΘl4}2)φt0–2]. Combining the expressions for the structure-generating functions gives a single function for T–O–T and H–O–H structures: S(N;n)= Xi[M(3n+2N–3)?2(n+N–2)(D2(N–1)f2ap(N–1){T2nT(3n–N)brT2napT2N1}2)f0–2(N–1)t] This expression also generates mixed-ribbon polysomatic structures. Thus S(1;2+3)gives the chemical composition and structure of the mixed-chain pyribole chesterite, and S(2;1+4)gives the chemical composition and structure of the mixed-chain H–O–H mineral, veblenite.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".