MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400981332 · doi:10.2138/am-2023-9103

Quantifying the potential for mineral carbonation of processed kimberlite with the Rietveld-PONKCS method

2024· article· en· W4400981332 on OpenAlexaff
Nina Zeyen, Sasha Wilson, Rebecca A. Funk, Connor Turvey

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Mineralogist · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKimberliteCarbonationMineralGeochemistryRietveld refinementGeologyMineralogyChemistryMetallurgyMaterials scienceCrystal structureCrystallographyMantle (geology)Composite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Quantitative phase analysis (QPA) using the Rietveld method and X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns is useful for predicting the reactivity of a rock to carbon dioxide (CO2) and for quantifying mineral carbonation. Lizardite and smectites in kimberlite are reactive to CO2, but they are structurally disordered and cannot be quantified using the standard Rietveld approach. In this study, the Partial Or No Known Crystal Structure (PONKCS) method was used to model the peak profiles of smectite and lizardite to account for turbostratic stacking disorder in synthetic samples of processed kimberlite. Lizardite and montmorillonite PONKCS models were made using XRD patterns collected with three X-ray diffractometers: two XRDs from the same manufacturer and of similar model (XRDs B1 and B2) and another XRD from a different manufacturer (XRD A1). Five synthetic samples of processed kimberlite of known compositions were prepared and used to test the results of these PONKCS models for data collected using all three instruments. The results provide a total bias ranging from 4.8–14.1 wt% using correctly calibrated, instrument-specific PONKCS models. We also tested the sensitivity of the PONKCS method to changes in instrument geometry: PONKCS models calibrated for one instrument (XRD B1) were used in refinements with XRD data collected on an instrument made by a different manufacturer (XRD A1), or on a similar instrument made by the same company but having a slightly different geometry (XRD B2). Results were highly inaccurate when PONKCS models calibrated to XRD B1 were used with patterns collected on XRD A1 (32.1–71.6 wt% total bias for our weighed mixtures). Our results show that the smaller differences in instrument parameters between XRD B1 and XRD B2 can also lead to inconsistent and less accurate QPA results using PONKCS (9.8–32.7 wt% total bias). Therefore, correct calibration of PONKCS models to a specific XRD instrument is required for accurate QPA and quantification of CO2 mineralization in clay-rich rocks.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican MineralogistSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207