Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insight into the size and morphology of assemblages of magnetite particles can be gained by comparing temperature variations of remanence or susceptibility after zero‐field cooling (ZFC) and after field cooling (FC) through the Verwey transition around Tv = 120 K. At 10 K a sample is demagnetized following ZFC, but in the FC initial state before warming the sample has a transition cooling remanence (TrCRM) acquired in crossing Tv. The matching transition warming remanence (TrWRM) acquired as a result of heating a demagnetized sample from low temperature across Tv is often called inverse thermoremanent magnetization (ITRM). In TrCRM experiments, initially demagnetized samples were cooled in a 2 mT field from 300 K to 10 K. Magnetization M was measured at 1 K to 5 K intervals, the highest‐resolution data being taken between 140 K and 90 K. The field was zeroed at 10 K, and the TrCRM was monitored during zero‐field warming back to 300 K. The properties of TrCRMs are generally similar to those of TrWRMs produced by heating a ZFC sample in a 2 mT field from 10 K. In 10 of 12 samples (grain sizes from 0.6 to 135 μm), M of monoclinic magnetite produced by field cooling through Tv exactly equals M of cubic magnetite produced by field warming through Tv, even though the ultimate TrCRM and TrWRM values when H → 0 are entirely different. Mirror‐image symmetry was observed between in‐field warming curves tracking the acquisition of TrWRM and zero‐field warming curves of TrCRM between 10 and 300 K. The symmetry, with increases in the field‐on M curves mirroring decreases in the field‐off Mr curves, was almost perfect from 10 to 110 K. Approximate symmetry was also observed between in‐field cooling curves tracking TrCRM production and zero‐field cooling curves of TrWRM between 300 K and Tv. Detailed study of the properties and mechanism(s) of transition remanences will help clarify why the ZFC/FC method is diagnostic in some instances and not in others.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".