PROCEDIMENTOS ENVOLVENDO A COMISSÃO DE NOVOS MINERAIS E NOMES DE MINERAIS DA IMÃ, E DIRETRIZES SOBRE NOMENCLATURA MINERAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traducao e adaptacao do original em ingles PROCEDURES INVOLVING THE IMA COMMISSION ON NEW MINERALS AND MINERAL NAMES; AND GUIDELINES ON MINERAL NOMENCLATURE, [publicado nos seguintes periodicos: Ada Petrologica et Minenuogka 6(1987):252-278, American Mineralogist 72(1987): 1031-1042, Boletfn de Ia Sociedad Espafiola de Mineralogfa 12(1989):1-30, Bulletin de Mineralogie 110(1987):717-741, Canadian Mineralogist 25(1987):353-377, Fortschrifte der Mineralogie 65(1987):175-196, Indian Journal of Earth Sciences 14(1987):152-188, Mineralogical Journal 13(1987):505-532, Mineralogfcal Magazine 52(1988):275-292, Mineralogy and Petrology 37(1987):157-179, Mineralogicheskiy Zhumal 11(l)(1989):51-86, Recooditi delia Societa Italiana di Mineralogia e Petrologia 4(1988):27-53, Riyista Mineralogies Italiana 1:5-31 (Supl.), Schweizerische Mineralogische und Petrographische Mitteillungen 67(1/2): 185-210], realizada com a permissao da IMA por DANIEL ATENCIO e GIANNA MARIA GARDA An author wishing to introduce a new mineral name into the literature, or to redefine, discredit or rename an existing mineral, must obtain prior approval of the IMA Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names. This paper outlines die procedure to be followed in the preparation and submission of a proposal far approval, and describes how such proposals are handled by the Commission. The paper also reports decisions on nomenclature made by the Commission, and gives general guidelines on mineral nomenclature. Lists of mineral names discredited by the Commission, and of recently-approved rare-earth mineral names are appended.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".