MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970557640 · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/3/1/324

Estimating the magnetic penetration depth using constant-height magnetic force microscopy images of vortices

2001· article· en· W1970557640 on OpenAlexaff
M. Roseman, Peter Grütter

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Journal of Physics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsVortexPenetration depthMagnetic force microscopePenetration (warfare)MagnetizationCondensed matter physicsConstant (computer programming)Magnetic fieldSuperconductivityMicroscopyOpticsMechanicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present constant-height magnetic force microscopy images of magnetic vortices on a superconducting Nb film. From a comparison of the measured vortex profiles with theoretical models, as a function of scan height, we conclude that it is possible to determine the relative value of the magnetic penetration depth λ to within 10-20% using an uncalibrated tip. If a quantitatively characterized tip with a known magnetization structure were used, this would then permit one to obtain an absolute value of λ with similar accuracy.

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 score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations21
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Journal of PhysicsSame topicPhysics of Superconductivity and MagnetismFrench-language works237,207