On the definition of distinct mineral species: A critique of current IMA–CNMNC procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The criteria for the definition of a new mineral species currently used by the Commission on New Minerals Nomenclature and Classification (CNMNC) of the International Mineralogical Association are critically examined. In particular, the rule of the dominant constituent can violate the laws of conservation of electric charge. A series of additional rules: (1) valency-imposed double site-occupancy; (2) the dominant-valency rule; and (3) the site-total-charge approach, have been developed in an attempt to correct this error. However, none of these rules can overcome the fundamental flaw introduced by the rule of the dominant constituent, and the chemical formulae resulting from application of these rules can violate the requirements of an end-member, particularly that of electroneutrality. As a result, the IMA–CNMNC rules cannot derive end-member formulae for some groups of minerals, giving rise to many ad hoc decisions in defining distinct mineral species.
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 | 0.087 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
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".