Discreditation of the pyroxenoid mineral name ‘marshallsussmanite’ with a reinstatement of the name schizolite, NaCaMnSi3O8(OH)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Schizolite, originating from the type locality, Tutop Agtakôrfia, in the Ilímaussaq alkaline complex, Julianehåb district, South Greenland, was described initially by Winther (1901) with additional data being supplied by Bøggild (1903). Recently, a proposal for the new mineral ‘marshallsussmanite’ was submitted to, and approved by, the International Mineralogical Association Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification (IMA2013-067) by Origlieri et al. (2013). Results from the detailed examination of two schizolite cotype samples presented here, using single-crystal and powder X-ray diffraction, and optical properties, confirms it to be equivalent to ‘marshallsussmanite’. Historical precedence sets a priority for discrediting the name ‘marshallsussmanite’ in favour of the original, more-than-a century-old name, schizolite. The two schizolite samples investigated vary slightly in physical and chemical properties but are consistent overall. The prismatic crystals are pale red or pink to brownish. Schizolite is brittle with a splintery aspect. It is biaxial (+), with average optical parameters: α = 1.626 ± 0.003, β = 1.630 ± 0.002, γ = 1.661 ± 0.002, 2Vmeas = 71(4)° and 2Vcalc = 40°; there is no pleochroism. Electron microprobe analysis shows both samples have nearly identical compositions (differences <0.4 wt.% oxide), with the mean values of: SiO2 52.6(4); Al2O3 0.005(1); FeO 2.54(2); MnO 13.86(9); CaO 17.9(4); Na2O 8.9(1); and H2O 2.59(2) wt.% oxide; this corresponds to a mean formula of: Na1.00(2)Ca1.11(7)Mn0.68(1)Fe0.12(0)Si3.041(1)O8(OH). Final least-squares structure refinements for both samples converged at R1 values ≤2.0%; H atoms were located in all refinements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".