From structure topology to chemical composition. XII. Titanium silicates: the crystal chemistry of rinkite, Na<sub>2</sub>Ca<sub>4</sub><i>REE</i>Ti(Si<sub>2</sub>O<sub>7</sub>)<sub>2</sub>OF<sub>3</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rinkite, ideallyNa2Ca4REETi(Si2O7)2OF3, is a common mineral in alkaline and peralkaline rocks. The crystal structures of five rinkite crystals from three alkaline massifs: Ilimaussaq, Greenland; Khibiny, Kola Peninsula, Russia and Mont Saint-Hilaire, Canada, have been refined as two components related by the TWIN matrix (–1 0 0, 0 –1 0, 1 0 1)(Mo-αaradiation). The crystals,a =7.4132-7.4414,b =5.6595-5.6816,c =18.8181-18.9431 Å, β = 101.353-101.424(2)°,V=776.1-786.7 Å3, space groupP21lc, Z =2,Dcalc= 3.376—3.502 g cm–3, were analysed using an electron microprobe subsequent to collection of the X-ray intensity data. Transmission electron microscopy confirmed the presence of pseudomerohedral twinning in rinkite crystals. The crystal structure of rinkite is a framework of TS (titanium silicate) blocks. The TS block consists of HOH sheets (H-heteropolyhedral, O-octahedral). The TS block in rinkite exhibits linkage and stereochemistry typical for Group I (Ti = 1 a.p.f.u.) of Ti disilicate minerals: two H sheets connect to the O sheet such that two (Si2O7) groups link to thetransedges of a Na polyhedron of the O sheet. The crystal chemistry of rinkite and nacareniobsite-(Ce) is discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".