Dipole-dipole interactions in the computational micromagnetism of iron (1955-2010) (invited)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Basic treatment of magnetically soft ferromagnetic metals has been a long struggle during the 55 years of the MMM conferences. At the first conference, Charles Bean brought on stage a four-foot-long mechanical analog of a domain wall. Landau, twenty years earlier had shown that the wall exists to minimize the magnetostatic self-energy of the dipole moments that accompany the spins responsible for ferromagnetism, but no one could calculate the energy of the simple structure that Landau used to illustrate his conjecture. The structure itself was not adequately described. Today, computer programs use the full power of micromagnetics to properly describe the vortex structure that was hidden in Landau’s model. Vortices terminate in swirls that can be manipulated by small bias fields (mT) or currents (mA). The swirls carry external fields of 0.5 T and can oscillate (driven or freely) over distances of tens of nm in times of tenths of ns, providing new tools for scientific and technical advances on the atomic scale. That this could have been overlooked for so long is evidence of the difficulty of visualizing the consequence of what for all these years has been called the pole-avoidance principle.
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".