Partial anhysteretic remanent magnetization in magnetite 2. Reciprocity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One necessary condition for successful determination of relative paleomagnetic field intensity using anhysteretic remanent magnetization (ARM) methods is reciprocity: a partial ARM, produced by a steady field H applied over a narrow interval ( 2 , 1 ) of alternating field (AF), must demagnetize over the same interval ( 2 , 1 ). Experimentally, we find that partial ARMs of single‐domain (SD) and pseudosingle‐domain (PSD) grains demagnetize mainly between 2 and 1 , whereas >50% of partial ARMs of large PSD and multidomain (MD) grains are erased below 1 , giving a low‐field tail in the coercivity distribution. Natural pumices, granites, and oceanic basalts violated reciprocity, but lake sediments, gabbros, andesite, and red scoria had relatively small low‐coercivity tails and are better candidates for paleointensity work. Using total ARM to simulate natural remanence, we carried out pseudo‐Thellier paleointensity determinations for coarse PSD and MD grains. ARM demagnetization outweighed partial ARM acquisition at the same AF step, resulting in convex‐down curves of ARM remaining versus partial ARM gained (pseudo‐Arai plot). Pseudo‐Arai plots predicted from experimentally determined distributions of blocking and unblocking fields agreed well with measured pseudo‐Thellier results, in particular explaining convex‐down MD curves.
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) | 0.000 | 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".