Comment on Lykova <i>et al.</i> (2024): “Natromelansonite, Na<sub>3</sub>Zr[Si<sub>7</sub>AlO<sub>19</sub>]⋅4–5H<sub>2</sub>O, a new member of the rhodesite mero-plesiotype series from Mont Saint-Hilaire, Quebec, Canada”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this communication, we present a brief response to Lykova et al. (2024) who, in a paper in volume 88 https://doi.org/10.1180/mgm.2024.1 (this journal), describe the occurrence of the new mineral natromelansonite, Na 3 Zr(Si 7 AlO 19 )⋅4–5H 2 O, and provide commentary on the related species, melansonite (Na,□)□ 2 KZrSi 8 O 19 ⋅5H 2 O. The comments in question revolve primarily around the roles and abundances of Al and Na in both minerals, and how their incorporation is best represented in their idealised formulae. Lykova et al. (2024) state that Al is an essential component of both melansonite and natromelansonite and should thus be reflected in the ideal formulae. With respect to Na, they propose that the ideal formula of melansonite contains two Na apfu rather than one, as was presented in our initial definition of the mineral. We reiterate there is no unequivocal evidence that Al is an essential component of melansonite, occupying a unique crystallographic site, but rather, it only substitutes for Si. Secondly, though the true Na content of melansonite is probably higher than were originally reported (this being simply explained by the thin nature of the crystals analysed and the volatility of Na under the electron beam), it cannot reconcile the doubling of the Na apfu for melansonite, as was suggested by Lykova et al. (2024).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".