The pseudomalachite-ludjibaite-reichenbachite conundrum: OD description
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Crystal structures of the three polymorphs of Cu5(PO4)2(OH)4, namely pseudomalachite, ludjibaite, and reichenbachite, can be described as being composed of rods perpendicular to their crystal-chemical layering. Two different sorts of rods can be defined. Type 1 rods share rows of Cu coordination polyhedra, forming a series of slabs. Slab boundaries and slab interiors represent alternating geometric OD layers of two kinds, with layer symmetries close to P21/m and , which make up two different stacking schemes of geometric OD layers in the structures of ludjibaite and pseudomalachite. Such OD layers, however, are not developed in reichenbachite. Type 2 rods are defined as having columns of PO4 tetrahedra in the corners of the rods. In the Type 2 slabs composed of these rods, geometric Pg OD layers of glide-arrayed tetrahedra alternate with more complex OD layers; in ludjibaite this system of layers is oriented diagonally with respect to the Type 1 OD layer system. Two different OD stackings of Type 2 OD layers form the ludjibaite and reichenbachite structures but not that of pseudomalachite. Thus, ludjibaite might form disordered intergrowths with either of the other two members of the triplet but reichenbachite and pseudomalachite should not form oriented intergrowths. Current knowledge concerning formation of the three polymorphs is considered.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".