MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334823374 · doi:10.3749/canmin.50.2.531

DISTINCT DOMAINS IN "GUARINITE" FROM MONTE SOMMA, ITALY: CRYSTAL STRUCTURES AND CRYSTAL CHEMISTRY

2012· article· en· W2334823374 on OpenAlex
M. Bellezza, С. Мерлино, Natale Perchiazzi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCrystal Structures and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrystal (programming language)Chemical physicsCrystal chemistryChemistryCrystal structureCrystallographyMineralogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

tract“Guarinite” is a typical accessory mineral of the Monte Somma syenite; it belongs to the cuspidine group and displays a domain structure. “Guarinite” contains up to three distinct domains, corresponding to three different ways to connect disilicate groups and walls of octahedra; these may all be simultaneously present in the same crystal. The domains present in the crystals of “guarinite” have cell type I, II and IV, according to the classification scheme proposed for cuspidine-group minerals. Domain IV is the most common, and domain I is the rarest; domain II may occur as the only domain, whereas domain I occurs only in association with domain IV, which invariably predominates. So far, the actual structure of the various domains had not been defined. EPMA and single-crystal structural studies indicate that domain I of “guarinite” displays space group P1, with a 10.973(2), b 10.306(1), c 7.367(3) Å, a 90.03(3), b 109.63(3), g 90.11(2)°, with a crystal-chemical formula Ca3(Ca0.72
\n
\nZr0.28)S1.00(Zr0.86M0.14)S1.00(Ca0.59Mn0.25Fe0.16)S1.00(Na1.20Ca0.76)S1.96(Si1.98O7)2(F2.88O1.12)S4.00, where M represents Nb, Ti, Al, Sr, and REE. Domain I is isostructural with hiortdahlite II, and its crystal structure was refined to a final R of 0.072. Domain II of “guarinite” displays space group P1211, with a 10.836(1), b 10.270(1), c 7.296(1) Å, b 109.13(3)°, with a crystal-chemical formula Ca3Zr(Nb0.56Fe0.15Mn0.10Ti0.10Zr0.09)S1.00(Ca0.72Mn0.18M0.10)S1.00(Na0.77Ca0.23)S1.00(Na0.80Ca0.22)S1.02(Si2O7)2(O2.17
\n
\nF1.83)S4.00, where M represents Al, Mg, Sr and Y. Domain II is isostructural with wöhlerite, and its crystal structure was refined to a final R of 0.045. Domain IV of “guarinite” adopts space group P1, with a 10.970(2), b 10.943(2), c 7.365(1) Å, a 109.63(2), b 109.65(2), g 83.39(1)°, with a crystal-chemical formula Ca4Zr(Ca0.31Mn0.25Fe0.16Zr0.14M0.14)S1.00(Na1.20
\n
\nCa0.76)S1.96(Si1.98O7)2(F2.88O1.12)S4.00, where M represents Nb, Ti, Al, Sr and REE. Domain IV is isostructural with hiortdahlite I, and its crystal structure was refined to a final R of 0.067. One should note that the refinements of domain I and domain IV (both twinned) have been carried out on the same crystal. EMPA and SEM studies show the presence of chemically homogeneous crystals as well as crystals with distinct chemical zoning due to a wide variation of the major elements Nb, Ca, Na, F, and pointing to the possible coupled substitution Nb5+ + 2Na+ + O2– →← 3Ca2+ + F– as one of the main mechanisms of chemical variation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it