Crystal Chemistry of Birefringent Uvarovite Solid Solutions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The crystal chemistry of five optically anisotropic uvarovite samples from different localities (California, Finland, Russia, and Switzerland) were studied with electron-probe microanalysis (EPMA) and the Rietveld method. Monochromatic synchrotron high-resolution powder X-ray diffraction (HRPXRD) data were used, and Rietveld refinement was carried out with the cubic space group, I a 3 ¯ d . The general formula for garnet is [8]X3[6]Y2[4]Z3[4]O12. Uvarovite has the ideal formula, Ca3Cr2Si3O12, which may be written as Ca3{Cr,Al,Fe}Σ2[Si3O12] because of solid solutions. HRPXRD traces show multiple cubic garnet phases in each sample that has a heterogeneous chemical composition. The optical and back-scattered electron (BSE) images and elemental maps contain lamellar and concentric zoning as well as patchy intergrowths. With increasing a unit-cell parameter for uvarovite solid solutions, the Z–O distance remains constant, and the average <X–O> distance increases slightly in response to the Cr3+ ⇔ Al3+ cation substitution in the Y site. The Y–O distance increases most because Cr3+ (radius = 0.615 Å) is larger than Al3+ (radius = 0.545 Å) cations. The Fe3+ (radius = 0.645 Å) cation is also involved in this substitution. Structural mismatch between the cubic garnet phases in the samples gives rise to strain-induced optical anisotropy.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it