Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The structure hierarchy hypothesis states that structures may be ordered hierarchically according to the polymerization of coordination polyhedra of higher bond valence. A mathematical hierarchy is an ordered set of elements where the ordering reflects a natural hierarchical relation between (or arrangement of) the elements. Here, I review the structure hierarchies for the borate, uranyl oxide, phosphate, sulfate, beryllate and oxide-centred Cu, Pb and Hg minerals (plus synthetics where appropriate). Structure hierarchies have two functions: (1) they serve to organize our knowledge of minerals (crystal structures) in a coherent manner; (2) if the basis of the classification involves factors that are related to the mechanistic details of the stability and behaviour of minerals, then the physical, chemical and paragenetic characteristics of minerals should arise as natural consequences of their crystal structures and the interaction of those structures with the environment in which they occur. We may justify the structure hierarchy hypothesis by considering a hypothetical structure-building process whereby higher bond-valence polyhedra polymerize to form the structural unit. The clusters constituting the FBBs (fundamental building blocks) may polymerize to form the following types of structural unit: (1) isolated polyhedra; (2) clusters; (3) chains and ribbons; (4) sheets; and (5) frameworks. The major advantage of this approach to structure hierarchy is the fact that the hypothetical structure-building process outlined above resembles (our ideas of) crystallization from an aqueous solution, whereby complexes in aqueous and hydrothermal solutions condense to form crystal structures, or fragments of linked polyhedra in a magma condense to form a crystal. Although our knowledge of these processes is rather vague from a mechanistic perspective, the foundations of the structure hypothesis give us a framework within which to think about the processes of crystallization and dissolution.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.005 |
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".