MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1241571153 · doi:10.1063/1.4922566

Experimental issues in magnetic force microscopy of nanoparticles

2015· article· en· W1241571153 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic force microscopeMagnetic fieldCharacterization (materials science)Magnetic nanoparticlesSaturation (graph theory)Materials scienceDemagnetizing fieldMagnetizationNanoscopic scaleMicroscopyMagnetic domainNanoparticleNanotechnologyCondensed matter physicsNuclear magnetic resonanceOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of magnetic nanoparticles for biomedical applications requires a detailed characterization of their magnetic properties, with relation not only to their chemical structure, but also their morphology and size. Magnetic force microscopy (MFM), thanks to its nanometric lateral resolution and its capability to detect weak magnetic fields, appears as a powerful tool for the characterization of the magnetic properties of single nanoparticles, together with their morphological characteristics. Nevertheless, the application of MFM to the quantitative measurements of magnetic properties at the nanoscale is still an open issue because of a certain incongruence between experimental data and existing theoretical models of the tip-sample magnetic interactions. In this work, MFM data acquired on different magnetic nanoparticles in different experimental conditions (magnetized and not magnetized probes, out-of-field and in-field measurements) are analyzed, with the aim of individuating the possible phenomena affecting MFM measurements. These include topography-induced artifacts resulting from the tip-sample capacitive coupling, which we propose here for the first time. In case of measurements performed in presence of an external magnetic field, much more intense MFM signals were detected as it produces the saturation of the magnetization of the nanoparticles, which is not completely obtained by the sole stray field produced by the tip. Nevertheless, even in in-field measurements, the results evidenced the presence of significant electrostatic effects in MFM images, which, therefore, appear as an important factor to be taken into account for the quantitative interpretation of MFM data.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.287 · 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