The Crystal Structure of Elpidite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
nova and Belov are the doubling of the cell parameter 6, the centric space group, and the improved accuracy of the atomic parameters. The refined structure, using Weissenberg data, yielded a final R index of 0.07. fntroduction The crystal structure of elpidite NazZrSioOrs.3H2O was solved by Neronova and Belov (1963) and described in the centrosymmetric space group pmcm.l In a later paper, the same authors (1964) lowered the symmetry to P2cm in order to explain certain features of the electron density map. The least squares refinement carried out on the basis of this latter space group led to a final discrepancy factor ot O.2l.It was impossible for the Russian authors to obtain a more satisfactory R factor and accurate values of interatomic distances using the imperfect, twinned crystals from Lovozero, Kola peninsula, U.S.S.R. Elpidite was recently found in silicate veins and vugs of the nepheline syenite of Mt. St. Hilaire(Quebec, Canada) and described by Chao (1967), who reported the following lattice parameters: a = 7.14, b: 14.68, c = 14.58 A; the D cell parameter is twice the value of Russian elpidite. The availabil-ity of perfect single crystals of elpidite from Mt. St. Hilaire suggested a revision of the crystal structure of this mineral.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".