MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1635618211 · doi:10.1063/1.1667810

Magnetic structure of Er5Si4

2004· article· en· W1635618211 on OpenAlexaff
J. M. Cadogan, D. H. Ryan, Z. Altounian, Xubo Liu, I. P. Swainson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetic and transport properties of perovskites and related materials
Canadian institutionsSteacie Institute for Molecular SciencesMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntiferromagnetismMagnetic structureNeutron diffractionOrthorhombic crystal systemMagnetic refrigerationHyperfine structureCondensed matter physicsFerromagnetismMagnetic momentMagnetic susceptibilityCrystallographyCrystal structureMössbauer spectroscopyMaterials scienceChemistryMagnetizationMagnetic fieldPhysicsAtomic physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of our ongoing study of giant magnetocaloric compounds, we have determined the magnetic structure of Er5Si4 by high-resolution neutron powder diffraction, ac-susceptibility, and Er166 Mössbauer spectroscopy. The crystal space group is orthorhombic Pnma and the magnetic space group is Pn′ma′. The magnetic ordering temperature is 32(3) K and the magnetic structure is characterized by ferromagnetic order of the three Er sites (4c, 8d1, and 8d2) along [010], together with antiferromagnetic order of the 8d sites in the perpendicular (010) plane. The Er 4c magnetic mode is FY and the 8d magnetic mode is CX+FY+GZ+. At 3.6 K, the Er magnetic moments are 7.4(1), 6.9(2), and 7.6(2) μB at the 4c, 8d1, and 8d2 sites, respectively, and the corresponding Er166 hyperfine magnetic fields, at 5 K, are 715(5), 627(2), and 736(3) T. The neutron diffraction data show tentative evidence of a reorientation of the magnetic structure, most likely involving the development of an antiferromagnetic component at the 4c site, between 14 and 4 K.

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 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicMagnetic and transport properties of perovskites and related materialsFrench-language works237,207