On the Calculation of the Relative Amounts of Endmember Constituents For Garnet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT It is commonly accepted that the calculation of the proportions of endmember constituents in garnet is dependent on the particular sequence of calculating the amounts of the endmembers, and this belief has been used to justify avoiding the use of endmembers in the definition of a mineral species. Calculating the amounts of endmember constituents to represent a specific mineral formula involves the solution of a set of simultaneous equations, and hence the idea that the solution is dependent on the order in which the amounts of endmember constituent are determined conflicts with the meaning of the term “simultaneous equations”. Here I examine the data on which these conclusions are based and show that these sequence-dependent results arise because of the use of non-stoichiometric formulae that are not electroneutral. If a garnet formula is adjusted slightly such that it exactly fits the general formula of a garnet, [8]X3[6]Y2[4]Z3O12, and is electroneutral, the simultaneous equations relating its chemical formula to a set of endmember constituents have a single unique solution. Thus, the argument that has been used to justify avoiding the use of endmembers in the definition of a mineral species is specious.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".