Canadian Mineralogist Vol. 25, pp.419424 (1987)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La moraesite se pr6sente en enduits dans les cavitds de la pegmatite granitique d tourmaline gemme de Humaita, au voisinage du Rio Jequitinhonha, dans le nord de l'€tat de Minas Gerais (Br6sil). Ses indices de r6fraction sont un peu plus 6lev6s que ceux de la moraesite type de la mine Sapucaia, dans le m6me 6tat. Sa formule chimique, obte-nue d partir d'une analyse par voie humide, correspond d (Ber.ssaCa0.xplno.oszFfo.oz8):.:(PO|2(OH)0.8.7H2O, avec rernplacement notable de @O) par (OH) et de Be par (Ca + Mn + Fe), Les donn6es diffractom€triques et les r6sul-tats d'analyses thermique diffdrentielle, thermogravimdtri-que et d'absorpdon infrarouge conduisent i critiquer la for-rnule originale du min6ral. Mots-cl4s: moraesite, pegmatite granitique, donn6es chi-miques, formule rdvisde, Br6si1. AsstRAcr Moraesite is found as a coating in pockets of the Humaita granitic pegmatite, which is worked for gem tourmaline, near the Jequitinhonha River, in the northern part of Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Indices of refraction are higher than those of moraesite from the type locality, the Sapucaia mine, in the s4me state, The chemical com-position, obtained from a wet-chemical analysis ' is (Be 1.5eaCaq.266Mne.qe2Fee.626)3.5(PO4)2(OH)s.6.7H20; @Of is partly replaced by (OH), and Be by (Ca + Mn + Fe). Powder-diffraction data, thermal analyses (DTA and TGA) and the infrared-absorption spectrum lead to a revision of the accepted formula.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.474 | 0.374 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".