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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Bellezza, С. Мерлино, Natale Perchiazzi

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian MineralogistSame topicCrystal Structures and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207