Linear Structural Trends and Multi-Phase Intergrowths in Helvine-Group Minerals, (Zn,Fe,Mn)8[Be6Si6O24]S2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synchrotron high-resolution powder X-ray diffraction (HRPXRD) and Rietveld structure refinements were used to examine the crystal structure of single phases and intergrowths (either two or three phases) in 13 samples of the helvine-group minerals, (Zn,Fe,Mn)8[Be6Si6O24]S2. The helvine structure was refined in the cubic space group P4¯3n. For the intergrowths, simultaneous refinements were carried out for each phase. The structural parameters for each phase in an intergrowth are only slightly different from each other. Each phase in an intergrowth has well-defined unit-cell and structural parameters that are significantly different from the three endmembers and these do not represent exsolution or immiscibility gaps in the ternary solid-solution series. The reason for the intergrowths in the helvine-group minerals is not clear considering the similar radii, identical charge, and diffusion among the interstitial M cations (Zn2+, Fe2+, and Mn2+) that are characteristic of elongated tetrahedral coordination. The difference between the radii of Zn2+ and Mn2+ cations is 10%. Depending on the availability of the M cations, intergrowths may occur as the temperature, pressure, fugacity fS2, and fluid composition change on crystallization. The Be–Si atoms are fully ordered. The Be–O and Si–O distances are nearly constant. Several structural parameters (Be–O–Si bridging angle, M–O, M–S, average [4] distances, and TO4 rotational angles) vary linearly with the a unit-cell parameter across the series because of the size of the M cation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".