MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240826832 · doi:10.2136/sssabookser7.c17

Chlorites

2002· book-chapter· en· W4240826832 on OpenAlexafffund
Connie K. Kohut, C. James Warren

Bibliographic record

VenueSoil Science Society of America book series · 2002
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicClay minerals and soil interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBattelle
KeywordsChloriteWeatheringAluminosilicateOctahedronHydroxideMineralogyGeochemistryClay mineralsGeologyChemistryChemical engineeringCrystallographyInorganic chemistryCrystal structureOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chlorites are hydrous aluminosilicates whose structure consists of a 2:1 layer with a hydroxide sheet in the interlayer region and usually contain Mg and Fe as the major octahedral cations. This chapter discusses the fundamental properties and characteristics of chlorites that play important environmental roles and some of the methods used in their investigation. The chlorite structure is composed of two tetrahedral sheets and two octahedral sheets. The chemistry, structure, and classification of chlorites are based largely on studies of macroscopic chlorites. Clay-sized chlorite in soils is derived from the physical weathering of macroscopic chlorite. Chlorite minerals are often found in the sediments and bedrock formations that may be selected for storage of radioactive wastes. Several mathematical techniques have been suggested to calculate the chemical composition of chlorite minerals from x-ray diffraction data. The chapter concludes with case studies involving specific environmental applications.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.016

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoil Science Society of America book seriesSame topicClay minerals and soil interactionsFrench-language works237,207