MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383374901 · doi:10.3749/2200034

Predicting the Crystal Structure of Beryl from the Chemical Composition

2023· article· en· W4383374901 on OpenAlexaff
Rhiana Henry, Lee A. Groat, Jan Cempírek, Radek Škoda, Markéta Holá

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Mineralogy and Petrology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMineralogy and Gemology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIonic radiusCrystal structureCrystallographyCrystal (programming language)ChemistryBond lengthRADIUSChemical compositionIonic bondingMineralCrystal chemistryIonMineralogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Crystal-structure prediction is a challenging topic. Few models have been developed that use the chemical composition of a known compound to determine a complete crystal structure. A complete structural model should include all major bond lengths and angles, atomic coordinates, polyhedral volumes and distortions, and unit-cell parameters. The mineral beryl is used here to develop such a model. Beryl (Be3Al2Si6O18) is an ideal mineral to show that predicting the crystal structure using chemistry is possible: the framework structure is known, this structure has only two cation sites that experience substitutions, and these substitutions only minimally occur simultaneously. Vacant channel sites are involved in coupled substitutions, allowing alkali cations (typically Na+) to enter the structure, and the channel regularly contains molecular H2O correlated to Na content (Henry et al. 2022). The research employed single-crystal X-ray diffraction and electron probe microanalyses of 80 samples to create a model which was subsequently tested using 33 samples. Results show that the complete crystal structure of beryl can be accurately calculated using the Al-site average ionic radius (Al-SAIR) for octahedrally trending beryl, or the Be-site average ionic radius (Be-SAIR) for tetrahedrally trending beryl. Beryl for which Al-SAIR > (0.45 × Be-SAIR) + 0.414 is considered octahedrally trending and that for which Al-SAIR ≤ (0.45 × Be-SAIR) + 0.414 is considered tetrahedrally trending. Red beryl (differentiated by high Fe and Mn) exhibits a different trend, forming a subset of the octahedrally trending beryl. There is an upper limit to the predictable range of beryl structures of 0.604 Å Al-SAIR or 0.326 Å Be-SAIR. This model makes it possible to explore limitations on the crystal structure of beryl and the potential for unusual cation substitutions, or conversely, to compute the structure of a hypothetical pure endmember beryl. It is robust for true beryl (beryl for which Be and Al are the dominant non-Si cations) up to a high limit of cation substitutions, but not for other beryl-group minerals, including stoppaniite, bazzite, avdeevite, and johnkoivulaite. Future studies on beryl will be able to estimate basic crystal-structure features arising from standard chemical analyses as used in this research. It enables the creation of an extensive beryl database, aids comparisons of natural beryl to synthetics, and helps provide further guidance on provenance studies. It also invites future crystal-structure prediction research. This approach is applicable to broader fields, as crystal structures are linked to the physical characteristics of minerals and rocks in which they form.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Mineralogy and PetrologySame topicMineralogy and Gemology StudiesFrench-language works237,207