MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1560614914 · doi:10.1111/maps.12003

Shock experiments in range of 10–45 GPa with small multidomain magnetite in porous targets

2012· article· en· W1560614914 on OpenAlexfundno aff
T. Kohout, L. J. Pesonen, A. Deutsch, K. Wünnemann, D. Nowka, U. Hornemann, E. Heikinheimo

Bibliographic record

VenueMeteoritics and Planetary Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGoddard Space Flight CenterAkademie Věd České RepublikyHelsingin YliopistoUniversity of TorontoNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPorosityMagnetitePelletsHardening (computing)MineralogyMaterials scienceSofteningShock (circulatory)GeologySedimentary rockComposite materialGeochemistryMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract– Physical properties of multidomain magnetite‐bearing porous pellets shocked up to 45 GPa were measured. The results show general magnetic softening as a result of shock. However, a relative magnetic hardening trend and slight magnetic susceptibility decrease is observed with increasing pressure among shocked samples. Initially, the shock also seems to cause a slight decrease in porosity, but at higher shock pressures macroscopic porosity increases progressively in our pellets. The microscopic porosity remains almost unchanged. Since our samples have distinctly higher initial porosity compared with samples used in previous studies, our results may be representative for impacts into highly porous magnetite‐bearing sedimentary or volcanic rocks and are relevant to impacts into such target rocks on Earth and Mars.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeteoritics and Planetary ScienceSame topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207