MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413072081 · doi:10.2138/am-2025-9824

The optics of a possible new interference figure in mineralogy

2025· article· en· W4413072081 on OpenAlexaff
Isaac Gomes de Oliveira, L. S. CARNEIRO, Lee A. Groat, Lucilene dos Santos, C. W. A. Paschoal, Tereza Falcão de Oliveira Neri

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Mineralogist · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMineralogy and Gemology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrossularInterference (communication)MosaicPerpendicularMineralogyOpticsAnisotropyQuartzGeologyMaterials sciencePhysicsGeometryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For eight decades, the number of interference figures in optical mineralogy has remained constant: three figures for uniaxial minerals and seven for biaxial ones. Each figure has its own specificities and formation conditions. However, the grossular garnets of the Quixeramobim region in Brazil exhibit a possible new type of interference figure: the “mosaic.” This rare characteristic is present in seven samples of grossular garnet from the region. In this paper, we explain how this new interference figure, named “mosaic,” is formed using optical mineralogy principles. When viewed with the quartz-gypsum accessory plate, these samples show an agglutination of colors, with blue, yellow, and purple appearing together in a mosaic configuration. This figure is formed by the different directions of vibration of light as it passes through these anisotropic garnets. Thus, in this configuration, the optic axes and acute and obtuse bisectrix occur in such a way that they are at the same time inclined (//) and perpendicular (⊥) manners. So far, the interference “mosaic” has been observed only in garnets of the grossular group; it occurs only in minerals that require a high degree of optical disorder.

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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican MineralogistSame topicMineralogy and Gemology StudiesFrench-language works237,207