MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015337895 · doi:10.3749/canmin.1900046

Warwickite from St. Lawrence County, New York: Mineral association, chemical composition, cation ordering, and splitting of the warwickite M1 site

2020· article· en· W3015337895 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marian Lupulescu, Alix M. Ehlers, John M. Hughes, David G. Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCrystal Structures and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhlogopitePyriteGalenaMineralElectron microprobeForsteriteMineralogyGeologyChemical compositionSphaleriteChemistryGeochemistryMaterials scienceMantle (geology)Metallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Warwickite has been discovered in the Edwards and Balmat #3 mines in the Balmat-Edwards mining district, St. Lawrence County, New York, located in the Adirondack Lowlands. The samples from the two mines are similar in chemistry and atomic arrangement but differ chemically from previously described samples; they are among the most Fe-poor samples described to date. The warwickite in the Edwards Mine sample occurs as 1–2 mm-diameter green crystals associated with pink spinel, forsterite, phlogopite, and pyrite in an impure dolomitic marble, whereas warwickite in the specimens from the Balmat #3 mine, approximately 10 km distant, occurs as brown to amber colored, slender, elongate, millimeter-size crystals in a calcitic marble in association with pink spinel, phlogopite, anhydrite, pyrite, and galena. Chemical analyses of the two specimens by electron microprobe show similar empirical formulas of (Mg1.43Ti0.36Al0.18Cr3+0.02Zr0.01)Σ2.00B0.98O4 (Edwards Mine) and (Mg1.39Ti0.40Al0.18Cr3+0.01Zr0.01Fe2+0.01)Σ2.00B0.94O4 (Balmat mine). The atomic arrangement of a specimen from each mine was determined, and the high-precision refinements provide new insight into the warwickite structure. The M1 site in warwickite is split into two sites to accommodate two occupants with differing bonding requirements; the M1 site contains Mg and the M1′ site hosts Ti, with the two sites being separated by approximately 0.2 Å. The optimized structural formula for both warwickite samples is similar to [M1(Mg0.84Al0.14Ti0.024+)2.74M1′(Ti0.914+Mn0.082+Mg0.01)1.30]Σ4.04M2(Mg0.86Al0.10Ti0.044+)4.00B4O16], demonstrating ordering of Mg at M1 and M2 and Ti at M1′. The site-splitting demonstrates how divalent Mg and tetravalent Ti can exist at a site in solid solution by ordering the two cations at split sites.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.182 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian MineralogistSame topicCrystal Structures and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207