Compositional Variations In Natural Intermetallic Compounds of Pd, Pt, Cu, and Sn: New Data and Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We examine overall compositional ranges and substitutions of elements in intermetallic compounds of Pd, Pt, Cu, and Sn (cabriite, taimyrite, “stannopalladinite”, and tatyanaite), on the basis of (1) new results based on electron microprobe analyses of these stannides from Noril9sk (Krasnoyarskiy kray, Russia) and Lukkulaisvaara (northern Karelia, Russia), and (2) data published in the literature on natural and synthetic stannides. These results are consistent with the existence of a single and extensive field of solid solutions of the stannides of Pd-Pt-Cu, related to cabriite–taimyrite and tatyanaite, with generalized formulae (Pd,Pt) 2+ x Cu 1– x (Sn,Sb) – (Pt,Pd) 2+ x Cu 1– x (Sn,Sb), where 0 x 2+ x (Fe,Cu) 1– x (Sb,Sn). No miscibility gap is evident. An unlimited substitution of Pt-for-Pd appears to exist; in addition, Pd partly substitutes for Cu, whereas there is no evidence for the existence of a Pt-for-Cu substitution in these solid solutions. The stannides of Pd-Pt-Cu were likely deposited relatively late in the crystallization history of mineral associations, at low temperatures, likely as a result of a significant drop in temperature and increase in activity of Cu and Sn in a fractionated sulfide melt or a fluid phase. An atypical combination of relatively low levels of fugacities of O 2 and S 2 could account for the appearance of these rare compounds instead of common oxide or sulfide minerals, and could explain the observed scarcity of phases of the Pd-Pt-Cu stannides in nature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; 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".