Żabińskiite, ideally Ca(Al<sub>0.5</sub>Ta<sub>0.5</sub>)(SiO<sub>4</sub>)O, a new mineral of the titanite group from the Piława Górna pegmatite, the Góry Sowie Block, southwestern Poland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Żabińskiite, ideally Ca(Al 0.5 Ta 0.5 )(SiO 4 )O, was found in a Variscan granitic pegmatite at Piława Górna, Lower Silesia, SW Poland. The mineral occurs along with (Al,Ta,Nb)- and (Al,F)-bearing titanites, a pyrochlore-supergroupmineral and a K-mica in compositionally inhomogeneous aggregates, ∼120 μm × 70 μm in size, in a fractured crystal of zircon intergrown with polycrase-(Y) and euxenite-(Y). Żabińskiite is transparent, brittle, brownish, with a white streak, vitreous lustre and a Mohs hardness of ∼5. The calculated density for the refined crystal is equal to 3.897 g cm –3 , but depends strongly on composition. The mineral is non-pleochroic, biaxial (–), with mean refractive indices ≥1.89. The (Al,Ta,Nb)-richest żabińskiite crystal,(Ca 0.980 Na 0.015 ) ∑=0.995 (Al 0.340 Fe 3+ 0.029 Ti 0.298 V 0.001 Zr 0.001 Sn 0.005 Ta 0.251 Nb 0.081 ) ∑=1.005 [(Si 0.988 Al 0.012 )O 4.946 F 0.047 (OH) 0.007 ) ∑=5.000 ];60.7 mol.% Ca[Al 0.5 (Ta,Nb) 0.5 ](SiO 4 )O; is close in composition to previously described synthetic material. Żabińskiite is triclinic (space group symmetry A 1) and has unit-cell parameters a = 7.031(2) Å, b = 8.692(2) Å, c = 6.561(2) Å, α = 89.712(11)°, β = 113.830(13)°, γ = 90.352(12)° and V = 366.77 (11) Å 3 . It is isostructural with triclinic titanite and bond-topologically identical with titanite and other minerals of the titanite group.Żabińskiite crystallized along with (Al,Ta,Nb)-bearing titanites at increasing Ti and Nb, and decreasing Ta activities, almost coevally with polycrase-(Y) and euxenite-(Y) from Ca-contaminated fluxed melts or early hydrothermal fluids.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".