MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164004125 · doi:10.3749/canmin.2000057

Alluaudite-Group Phosphate and Arsenate Minerals

2021· article· en· W3164004125 on OpenAlexaffvenue
K. T. Tait, F. C. Hawthorne, Norman M. Halden

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChemical Synthesis and Characterization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrystallographyElectron microprobeDiffractometerIonic radiusGroup (periodic table)ChemistrySingle crystalPowder diffractionCrystal structureMineralogyIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT A systematic study of alluaudite, hagendorfite, and varulite was done using single-crystal X-ray diffraction, powder diffraction, and electron probe microanalysis of samples from 12 separate localities. The crystal structures of the representative alluaudite and hagendorfite samples were refined to R1 indices of 3.7 and 1.8%, respectively, using a Siemens P4 automated four-circle diffractometer equipped with a graphite monochromator and MoKα X-radiation. These samples and several others were analyzed with an electron microprobe to study variations in chemical composition. For the single-crystal analyses, the resulting unit formulae are (Na0.11□0.89)(Na0.59Mn0.27Ca0.14)Mn1.00(Fe3+1.64Al0.24Mg0.13)(PO4)3 for alluaudite, (Na0.79□0.21)(Na0.81Mn2+0.19)(Mn0.70Fe2+0.30)(Fe2+1.72Mg0.27Al0.01)(PO4)3 for hagendorfite, and (Na0.84□0.16)(Na0.71Ca0.23□0.06)Mn1.00(Fe3+0.89Fe2+0.68Mn0.42Mg0.01)(PO4)3 for varulite. Originally, a nomenclature scheme was proposed for the alluaudite-group minerals that was based on sequentially distributing the cations in the cell according to increasing polyhedron size, matching that size with increasing ionic radii of the cations. For alluaudite, the structural formula was written as X(2)4X(1)4M(1)4M(2)8(PO4)12, with the sites ordered in decreasing size of the discrete polyhedra. Later, the formula [A(2)A(2)'A(2)”2][A(1)A(1)'A(1)”2]M(1)M(2)2(PO4)3 was proposed, which takes into account the distinct crystallographic sites in the channels of the structure. More recently there has been a revision to the nomenclature of the group. The simplified structural formula for the alluaudite-type is now A(2)'A(1)M(1)M(2)2(TO4)3; the new nomenclature scheme has been adopted by the Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification of the International Mineralogical Association (IMA-CNMNC), based on the contents of the M(1) and M(2) octahedral sites, and the results are reviewed here. Compounds belonging to the alluaudite structural family have been the focus of synthetic mineral studies for decades owing to the open-framework architecture and their unique physical properties. Improvements in synthesis methods have allowed researchers to substitute a wide range of elements into the alluaudite structure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian MineralogistSame topicChemical Synthesis and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207