Crystal Chemistry of Six Grossular Garnet Samples from Different Well-Known Localities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two isotropic grossular (ideally Ca3Al2Si3O12) samples from (1) Canada and (2) Tanzania, three optically anisotropic grossular samples (3, 4, 5) from Mexico, and one (6) anisotropic sample from Italy were studied. The crystal structure of the six samples was refined in the cubic space group Ia3¯d, using monochromatic synchrotron high-resolution powder X-ray diffraction (HRPXRD) data and the Rietveld method. The compositions of the samples were obtained from electron microprobe analyses (EPMA). The HRPXRD traces show a single cubic phase for two isotropic samples, whereas the four anisotropic samples contain two different cubic phases that were also resolved using X-ray elemental line scans, backscattered electron (BSE) images, and elemental maps. Structural mismatch from two cubic phases intergrown in the birefringent samples gives rise to strain-induced optical anisotropy. Considering the garnet general formula, [8]X3[6]Y2[4]Z3[4]O12, the results of this study show that with increasing unit-cell parameter, the Y-O distance increases linearly and rather steeply, the average distance increases just slightly in response to substitution mainly on the Y site, while the Z-O distance remains nearly constant. The X and Z sites in grossular contain Ca and Si atoms, respectively; both sites show insignificant substitutions by other atoms, which is supported by a constant Z-O distance and only a slight increase in the average distance. The main cation exchange is realized in the Y site, where Fe3+ (ionic radius = 0.645 Å) replaces Al3+ (ionic radius = 0.545 Å), so the Y-O distance increases the most.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".