Bibliographic record
Abstract
One concern as storage technology moves to perpendicular recording is the remnant state of the writer top pole. In principal, a remnant state with a substantial magnetization density perpendicular to the recording medium can lead to the unwanted erasure of data. Also, it is desirable to have the writer reach a nonerasing remnant state as quickly as possible. One technique to reduce the magnetization in the remnant state is to laminate the pole tip with some nonmagnetic material [Y. Satoh, A. Ohtsubo, and Y. Shimada, IEEE Trans. Magn. 21, 1551 (1985); S. Wang et al., IEEE Trans. Magn. 30, 3897 (1994)]. We have performed fully micromagnetic simulations of write elements with eight, five, four, and two laminates coupled antiferromagnetically. Results are presented for recording fields, as well as for the decay of the magnetization to a remnant state. The two- and four-laminate write elements typically have a vortex induced in the pole tip, and this vortex tends to survive, even in the remnant state. This can give rise both to a slow decay as well as large remnant fields from the out-of-plane magnetization in the vortex. On the other hand, the magnetization of the eight-laminate pole tip decays by “scissoring” of the magnetization in the laminates, with a faster decay to the remnant state. However, locally large divergences of the magnetization density can give rise to “hot spots” with relatively large remnant fields.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".