Day plots of mixtures of superparamagnetic, single‐domain, pseudosingle‐domain, and multidomain magnetites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We test how well a few hysteresis parameters (saturation remanence M rs , coercive force H c and remanent coercivity H cr ) serve to determine the proportions of end‐members in binary mixtures. Our end‐members are six magnetites whose grain sizes are within the superparamagnetic (SP), stable single‐domain (SD, three samples), pseudo‐SD (PSD), and multidomain (MD) ranges (Carter‐Stiglitz et al., 2001). The three SD magnetites have contrasting origins and properties: (1) bacterial magnetite crystals of a single size and coercivity, arranged in chains; (2) natural volcanic magnetites with a narrow distribution of coercivities; and (3) synthetic magnetites precipitated in glass, with a broader coercivity distribution. Our parameter mixing theory assumes linear magnetization curves of the end‐members between zero field and the largest coercive force H c (that of the SD phase, if present). Similarly remanent hysteresis curves should be linear up to the maximum remanent coercive force H cr . Three of our mixtures (SP plus bacterial SD, PSD plus bacterial SD, MD plus volcanic SD) had acceptable agreement between predicted and measured dependences of H c , H cr and the curve of M rs / M s versus. H cr / H c (Day plot) on end‐member concentrations. A nonlinear approximation to remanent hysteresis curves gave a reasonable fit to MD plus glass SD results. In this case, H cr / H c for the most MD‐rich mixture is larger than H cr / H c of either end‐member. Such behavior is characteristic of bimodal mixtures in which H cr is largely determined by the hard (SD) phase and H c by the soft (MD) phase. The only mixture that could not be modeled by linear or nonlinear parameter theory was MD plus bacterial SD. The bacterial SD hysteresis loop descends almost vertically at − H c because of the extremely narrow range of particle sizes and coercivities. In general, linear and nonlinear parameter mixing models are adequate if only an approximate fit to real data is needed. An inversion method using complete magnetization curves as end‐member basis functions is preferable as an unmixing technique. However, comparison of measured data to type curves, for example, on a Day plot, gives a quick indication of what end‐member phases might be involved in the mix and provides additional insight before beginning an inversion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".