Bounahasite, Cu<sup>+</sup>Cu<sup>2+</sup><sub>2</sub>(OH)<sub>3</sub>Cl<sub>2</sub>, a new mineral from the Bou Nahas Mine, Morocco
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The new mineral bounahasite, Cu + Cu 2+ 2 (OH) 3 Cl 2 , was found in the oxidation zone of the Bou Nahas Mine, Morocco. It forms pseudo-hexagonal plates up to 3 × 30 × 40 μm in size combined in loose clusters with native copper and paratacamite. The mineral is green with vitreous lustre. The cleavage is parallel to {110}, perfect. D calc is 3.90 g/cm 3 . The infrared spectrum is reported. The composition (wt.%) is Cu 2 O 23.26, CuO 51.72, Cl 23.36, H 2 O 8.71, O = Cl 2 –5.27, total 101.78. The empirical formula calculated on the basis of 3 Cu atoms per formula unit is: Cu + Cu 2+ 2 (OH) 2.97 Cl 2.03 . The mineral is monoclinic, P 2 1 /n, a = 8.5925(1), b = 6.4189(1), c = 10.4118(2) Å, β = 111.804(2)°, V = 533.17(2) Å 3 and Z = 4. The strongest reflections of the powder X-ray diffraction pattern [ d ,Å( I )( hkl )] are: 7.71(70)( $\bar{1}$ 01), 5.34(22)(011), 3.856(100)(012, $\bar{2}$ 02), 2.673(36)(022), 2.665 (30)(103) and 2.350 (71)( $\bar{1}$ 23, 301, $\bar{2}$ 14). The crystal structure, refined from single-crystal X-ray diffraction data ( R 1 = 0.028), is based on two alternating sheets coplanar to (110): one consists of alternating edge-sharing Cu 2+ (OH) 6 octahedra and two Cu 2+ (OH) 4 Cl 2 octahedra, whereas the other one is based on Cu + Cl 4 tetrahedra forming edge-sharing Cu + 2 Cl 6 dimers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".