MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203769883 · doi:10.2138/am-2021-7719

The suppression of lone-pair stereoactivity in [Cu+(As3+O3)4] clusters in dixenite: A tribute to Paul B. Moore

2020· article· en· W3203769883 on OpenAlexaff
F. C. Hawthorne, John M. Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Mineralogist · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCrystal Structures and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrystallographyOctahedronLone pairTetrahedronElectron countingCrystal structureCluster (spacecraft)Trigonal crystal systemChemistryGroup (periodic table)IonMaterials sciencePhysicsElectronMolecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The crystal structure of dixenite, ideally Cu+Fe3+Mn142+(As5+O4)(As3+O3)5(SiO4)2(OH)6, from Långban, Sweden, was refined to an R1-index of 1.58%, and the structure proposed by Araki and Moore (1981) was confirmed and details elucidated. The structure, crystallizing in space group R3 with a = 8.2204(3) and c = 37.485(3) Å, consists of layers of (Mn2+,Fe3+)(O,OH)6 octahedra linked by (As5+O4) and (SiO4) tetrahedra, (As3+O3) trigonal pyramids, and (CU+As43+) tetrahedra. There are five distinct layers in the repeat unit of the cell, four of which are very similar to the layers in mcgovernite. An unusual aspect of one of the trimers of octahedra is that there is a triangular-prismatic hole through the center of the cluster. The (CU+As43+) tetrahedra are parts of larger clusters: [Cu+(As3+O3)4] in which four (As3+O3) groups link to a central Cu+ that occupies the positions normally taken by the stereoactive lone-pairs of electrons that generally characterize As3+ in triangular-pyramidal coordination by O. Thus, the stereoactive lone-pair behavior that is characteristic of (As3+O3) trigonal pyramids is suppressed by the coordination of Cu+ by four As3+ ions.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican MineralogistSame topicCrystal Structures and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207