MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Magnetization and<sup>61</sup>Ni Mössbauer effect study of the ternary arsenide CrNiAs

2008· article· en· W1967334440 on OpenAlexaff
Z. M. Stadnik, P Wang, Nathan D Jansen, D. Walcher, Philipp Gütlich, T. Kanomata

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Condensed Matter · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicIron-based superconductors research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetizationMagnetic momentCondensed matter physicsCurie temperatureHyperfine structureCurie–Weiss lawTernary operationArsenideParamagnetismMössbauer spectroscopyFerromagnetismMaterials scienceChemistryCrystallographyMagnetic fieldGallium arsenidePhysicsAtomic physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The results of x-ray diffraction, dc magnetization, and 61 Ni Mössbauer spectroscopy studies of the ternary arsenide CrNiAs are reported. This compound crystallizes in the orthorhombic Fe 2 P-type structure (space group ) with the lattice parameters a = 6.1128(2) Å and c = 3.6585(1) Å. CrNiAs is a mean-field ferromagnet with Curie temperature T C = 171.9(1) K and the critical exponents β = 0.514(18), γ = 1.010(16), and δ = 2.922(10). The temperature dependence of the magnetic susceptibility above T C follows the modified Curie–Weiss law with a paramagnetic Curie temperature of 176.0(3) K and effective magnetic moment per transition metal atom of 2.42(1) μ B . The magnetic moment per formula unit at 4.2 K is found to be 1.114(33) μ B . The hyperfine magnetic field at 61 Ni nuclei at 4.2 K of 41.5(1.0) kOe implies that the Ni atoms carry a magnetic moment of 0.15(3) μ B , and that the moment carried by the Cr atoms is 0.95(6) μ B . The Debye temperature of CrNiAs is 221(1) 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 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 score0.003
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Condensed MatterSame topicIron-based superconductors researchFrench-language works237,207