First occurrence of the <i>M</i>2<i>a</i>2<i>b</i>2<i>c</i> polytype of argentopolybasite, [Ag<sub>6</sub>Sb<sub>2</sub>S<sub>7</sub>][Ag<sub>10</sub>S<sub>4</sub>]: Structural adjustments in the Cu-free member of the pearceite–polybasite group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The chemistry and the crystal structure of the recently described mineral argentopolybasite are critically discussed based on the study of two new occurrences of the mineral: Gowganda, Timiskaming District, Ontario, Canada and IXL Mine, Silver Mountain mining district, Alpine County, California. The crystal structure of argentopolybasite can be described as the sequence, along the c axis, of two alternating layers: a [Ag 6 Sb 2 S 7 ] 2– A layer and a [Ag 10 S 4 ] 2+ B layer. In the B layer there are linearly-coordinated metal positions ( B sites), which are usually occupied by copper in all members of the pearceite–polybasite group, resulting in a B -layer composition [Ag 9 CuS 4 ] 2+ . In argentopolybasite, however, Ag fills all the metal sites in both A and B layers. By means of a multi-regression analysis on 67 samples of the pearceite–polybasite group, which were studied by electron microprobe and single-crystal X-ray diffraction, the effect of Ag, Sb and Se on the B sites of the B layer was modelled. Although the nomenclature rules for these minerals are based on chemical data only, we think this approach is useful to evaluate the goodness of the refinement of the structure (Ag/Cu disorder) and thus fundamental to discriminate different members of the pearceite–polybasite group.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; 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".