MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990115544 · doi:10.2320/jinstmet.69.962

Magnetic Structure Analysis of Nd-Fe-B Based Nanocomposite Magnets by Electron Holography

2005· article· en· W1990115544 on OpenAlexaff
Daisuke Shindo, Hyun Soon Park, H. Kanekiyo, S. Hirosawa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Japan Institute of Metals and Materials · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetic Properties of Alloys
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCoercivityRemanenceElectron holographyMagnetNanocompositeCondensed matter physicsMagnetic fluxAnisotropyElectronFlux (metallurgy)Magnetic fieldOpticsNanotechnologyMetallurgyTransmission electron microscopyPhysicsMagnetization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic flux distribution in Nd-Fe-B based nanocomposite magnets was investigated at nanometer scale by electron holography. Both Nd4.5Fe77B18.5 and Nd-Fe-B-Ti-C, the latter of which was newly developed and commercialized under tradename of SPRAX, are found to consist of hard and soft magnetic grains of 10~30 nm in diameter. Through the comparison of reconstructed phase images of Nd4.5Fe77B18.5 and Nd-Fe-B-Ti-C, it is found that the lines of magnetic flux of Nd-Fe-B-Ti-C fluctuate more largely than Nd4.5Fe77B18.5 in both demagnetized and remanent states. The fluctuation in the distribution of lines of magnetic flux is considered to result from the randomness in the crystal orientation of the hard magnetic grains with high anisotropy. It is also pointed out that the fluctuated distribution of lines of magnetic flux is consistent with the high coercivity and high maximum energy product of Nd-Fe-B-Ti-C.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Japan Institute of Metals and MaterialsSame topicMagnetic Properties of AlloysFrench-language works237,207