Crystal Structure of an Anisotropic Pyrope Garnet That Contains Two Cubic Phases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The crystal structure of two different samples of pyrope garnet, ideally Mg3Al2Si3O12, from South Africa was refined using the Rietveld method, space group Ia3¯d, and monochromatic synchrotron high-resolution powder X-ray diffraction (HRPXRD) data. Sample 1 from Wesselton Mine is a single cubic phase and is optically isotropic. Electron-probe microanalysis (EPMA) provided an average composition {Mg2.30Fe2+0.26Ca0.42Mn2+0.02}∑3[Al1.53Fe3+0.06Cr3+0.40Ti4+0.01Fe2+0.01]∑2Si3O12, which contains a significant amount of Cr cations. The unit-cell parameter (Å) and bond distances (Å) are a = 11.56197(1) Å, average <Mg-O> = 2.2985, Al-O = 1.9101(4), and Si-O = 1.6343(3) Å. Sample 2 from De Beers Diamond Mine has an average composition {Mg2.33Fe2+0.33Ca0.33Mn2+0.01}∑3[Al1.73Fe3+0.12Cr3+0.06Ti4+0.05Fe2+0.05]∑2Si3O12 and is a fine-scale intergrowth of two cubic phases. The weight percentage, unit-cell parameter (Å), and bond distances (Å) for phase 2a are 62.2(1)%, a = 11.56185(1) Å, average <Mg-O> = 2.3006, Al-O = 1.9080(4), Si-O = 1.6334(4) Å. The corresponding values for phase 2b are 37.8(1)%, a = 11.53896(1) Å, average <Mg-O> = 2.2954, Al-O = 1.9020(6), Si-O = 1.6334(6) Å. The two cubic phases in sample 2 cause the crystal to be optically anisotropic because of strain induce birefringence. The unit-cell parameter and bond distances for sample 1 are similar to those in phase 2a.
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) | 0.011 | 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".