An Examination of Platinum-Group Element Thiospinels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A review and discussion of platinum-group element thiospinels is presented, the context of which is a proposal accepted by the Commission of New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification (voting proposal 17-H) made for the redefinition of cuproiridsite (ideally CuIr2S4), cuprorhodsite (ideally CuRh2S4), and malanite (ideally CuPt2S4), along with the discreditation of ferrorhodsite (ideally FeRh2S4) by Bosi et al. (2019). We review the literature in the context of the broader proposals by Bosi et al. (2019), highlight errors within them to conclude that all four proposals for redefinition and discreditation should have been rejected if the full facts had been consulted and IMA-established guidelines had been adhered to. It is agreed that dayingite should remain as a discredited mineral, while xingzhongite, redefined by Bosi et al. (2019) as Pb2+Ir3+2S4, is argued to be of questionable status and should be considered for discreditation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".