MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015092490 · doi:10.2138/am-2020-7257

Micro- and nano-size hydrogarnet clusters in calcium silicate garnet: Part II. Mineralogical, petrological, and geochemical aspects

2019· article· en· W3015092490 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles A. Geiger, George R. Rossman

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Mineralogist · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMineralogy and Gemology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrossularAndraditeSilicateAnhydrousCrystallizationAlmandineMineralogyInfrared spectroscopyCalciteCrystal (programming language)Cluster (spacecraft)DiffusionChemistryGeologyCrystallographyGeochemistryThermodynamicsQuartz

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The nominally anhydrous, calcium-silicate garnets, grossular (Ca3Al2Si3O12), andradite (Ca3Fe23+Si3O12), schorlomite (Ca3Ti24+[Si,Fe23+]O12), and their solid solutions can incorporate structural OH-, often termed “water.” The IR single-crystal spectra of several calcium silicate garnets were recorded between 3000 and 4000 cm–1. Spectroscopic results are also taken from the literature. All spectra show various OH- stretching modes between 3500 and 3700 cm–1 and they are analyzed. Following the conclusions of Part I of this study, the garnets appear to contain local microscopic- and nano-size Ca3Al2H12O12- and Ca3Fe23+H12O12-like domains and/or clusters dispersed throughout an anhydrous “matrix.” The substitution mechanism is the hydrogarnet one, where (H4O4)4– ↔ (SiO4)4–, and various local configurations containing different numbers of (H4O4)4– groups define the cluster type. A single (H4O4) group is roughly 3 Å across and most (H4O4)-clusters are between this and 15 Å in size. This model can explain the IR spectra and also other experimental results. Various hypothetical “defect” and cation substitutional mechanisms are not needed to account for OH- incorporation and behavior in garnet. New understanding at the atomic level into published dehydration and H-species diffusion results, as well as H2O-concentration and IR absorption-coefficient determinations, is now possible for the first time. End-member synthetic and natural grossular crystals can show similar OH- “band patterns,” as can different natural garnets, indicating that chemical equilibrium could have operated during their crystallization. Under this assumption, the hydrogarnet-cluster types and their concentrations can potentially be used to decipher petrologic (i.e., P-T-X) conditions under which a garnet crystal, and the rock in which it occurs, formed. Schorlomites from phonolites contain no or very minor amounts of H2O (0.0 to 0.02 wt%), whereas Ti-bearing andradites from chlorite schists can contain more H2O (∼0.3 wt%). Different hydrogarnet clusters and concentrations can occur in metamorphic grossulars from Asbestos, Quebec, Canada. IR absorption coefficients for H2O held in hydrogrossularand hydroandradite-like clusters should be different in magnitude and this work lays out how they can be best determined. Hydrogen diffusion behavior in garnet crystals at high temperatures is primarily governed by the thermal stability of the different local hydrogarnet clusters at 1 atm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican MineralogistSame topicMineralogy and Gemology StudiesFrench-language works237,207