MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097179101

Canadian Mineralogist VoL 27, pp. 483-493 (1989) THE STABILITY OF LlZARDITE AND CHRYSOTILE

2015· article· en· W7097179101 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForsteriteExtrapolationBruciteChrysotilePhase diagramTalc
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The method of dual networks was used to investigate phase relations in the MASH system amongst brucite (B), forsterite (F), aluminian lizardite (L), chrysotile (C), an-tigorite (A), talc (T), c1inochlore (Cl), and water (W). Only nine of the 96 possible univariant equilibria, and two ([B,C] and [L,T,Cl]) of the 15 invariant points are calculated to be stable in the P(HzO)-T plane. The P(HzO)-T coor-dinates of invariant point [B,C] are determined by the in-tersection of the reactions L = F + T + CI + W (1) and A = F + T + W (2). Reaction (1) shifts to lower temper-atures and pressures with decreasing AI content of lizardite. Thus, invariant point [B,C], located at P(HzO)> 25 kbars for lizardite with high-AI content (>9.0 wt. % Alz03), shifts to P(HzO) 5 kbars for lizardite with intermediate-AI content (-3.5 wt.OJoAlz03). As a result, the lizardite stability field decreases as the AI content of this phase decreases. Extrapolation of the above trend to lizardite with low-AI content (AIZ03 < 1.0 wt. %) suggests that the to-pology of the phase diagram changes and conforms with that of the AI-free system. One result of this change is that

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1900.069

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207