MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988351560 · doi:10.1029/2006jb004499

Day plots of mixtures of superparamagnetic, single‐domain, pseudosingle‐domain, and multidomain magnetites

2006· article· en· W1988351560 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Dunlop, Brian Carter‐Stiglitz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoercivityRemanenceMagnetiteHysteresisSaturation (graph theory)Materials scienceSuperparamagnetismSingle domainAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Grain sizeMineralogyMagnetizationCondensed matter physicsChemistryMagnetic domainMagnetic fieldPhysicsMetallurgyChromatographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We test how well a few hysteresis parameters (saturation remanence Mrs, coercive force Hc and remanent coercivity Hcr) 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 Hc (that of the SD phase, if present). Similarly remanent hysteresis curves should be linear up to the maximum remanent coercive force Hcr. 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 Hc, Hcr and the curve of Mrs/Ms versus. Hcr/Hc (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, Hcr/Hc for the most MD‐rich mixture is larger than Hcr/Hc of either end‐member. Such behavior is characteristic of bimodal mixtures in which Hcr is largely determined by the hard (SD) phase and Hc 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 −Hc 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 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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.270
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations60
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207