MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119806062 · doi:10.1201/b18107-17

The Mineralogy, Geology and Main Occurrences of Chrysotile

2015· book-chapter· en· W3119806062 on OpenAlex
Saverio Fiore, F. Javier Huertas

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueApple Academic Press eBooks · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChrysotileGeologyGeochemistryMining engineeringEconomic geologyMineralogyArchaeologyGeographyPaleontologyMaterials scienceMetallurgyTectonicsMetamorphic petrologyAsbestos

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chrysotile has been described as a “wonder” mineral because of its long, ultrathin, durable, flexible, and sometimes woven fibers. This peculiar crystal morphology, together with its chemical composition and crystal structure, determine unique thermal, electrical, and mechanical properties that have enabled chrysotile to be used in a number of industrial products or applications, from plastics to cement, from friction materials to vinyl tiles, and so on (e.g., Ross, 1981; Virta and Mann, 1994; Ross and Virta, 2001). Chrysotile fibers are classified, for commercial use, into fiber length groups, each one with its own subgroups (grade), with the longest fibers assigned to Group 0 and the shortest to Group 7. Each group has a specific use, the longer has been used in textiles, the shorter as a filler in various materials (cement, plastic, vinyl, etc.)The use of chrysotile for manufacturing industrial products began in the early decades of the twentieth century and its story is reflected in the worldwide consumption of asbestos that has increased from about 175 kilotonne (in the 1920) up to 4.8 megatonne (in the 1980) (Virta, 2006). Production of chrysotile asbestos in 2012 was around 2 kilotonne a year with the main producers being Russia (50%), China (22%), Brazil (15%), Kazakhstan (12%), (U.S. Geological Survey, 2013). USA and Canada were once among the main producers but now the mineral extraction is banned there, as well as in many European countries, because all forms of asbestos have been judged to be carcinogenic by the World Health Organization (WHO, 1988) and International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 1977, 1987). However, it is widely recognized that chrysotile is less dangerous than amphiboles and that its low inhalation does not represent a risk for health although a prolonged exposure can produce health diseases (e.g., Sporn and Roggli, 2004; Bernstein et al., 2013 and references therein). Experimental evidence shows that chrysotile can be degraded by acid fluids such as those present in the lung (e.g., Rozalen et al., 2014). This implies that the genotoxic and carcinogenic potentials of this serpentine mineral are surely enhanced by the presence of amphiboles, and more frequently tremolite asbestos. Chrysotile free from other potentially dangerous minerals, or its analogous synthetic material, may be looked at with interest for new applications as nanotubes.Chrysotile, as well as the other two minerals forming the serpentine group-antigorite and lizardite-, is the principal mineralogical components of serpentinites, fine grained ultramafic rocks that are exposed in almost all continents, including Antarctica. These hydrous magnesium silicate phases generally form through hydrothermal alteration of ultrabasic rock-forming minerals, such as olivine and ortho/ clinopyroxenes. The reaction that leads to the formation of chrysotile, antigorite, and lizardite may be conventionally described as follows:

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.212 · 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