MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016926324 · doi:10.1063/1.2424526

Effect of a magnetic field pulse on ultrafast magnetization reversal in a submicron elliptical Permalloy thin film

2007· article· en· W2016926324 on OpenAlexaff
Q. F. Xiao, B. C. Choi, J. Rudge, Yang‐Ki Hong, G.W. Donohoe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic properties of thin films
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermalloyRemanenceMagnetizationCondensed matter physicsPulse (music)Ultrashort pulsePrecessionMagnetic fieldMaterials scienceMicromagneticsPhysicsNuclear magnetic resonanceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The characteristics of a magnetic field pulse, its magnitude, direction, and rise and fall time on the mechanism of ultrafast magnetization reversal have been studied by micromagnetic simulations. An elliptically shaped, Permalloy thin film, having dimensions of 400nm long axis, 112nm short axis, and 3.2nm, thickness, was considered. A plot of the magnetic field pulse components describes three types of reversal behaviors, quasicoherent, incoherent, and nonreversal. The optimum magnetic field pulse for the suppression of magnetization ringing is found in the incoherent precession area by finding the lowest remanent total energy at the moment the pulse is cut off. The rise and fall time of the pulse has a significant effect on the reversal behavior only in the incoherent precession region. In this region, whether a reversal can occur depends on the rise time of the pulse. Extending the rise and fall time of the pulse, in the noncoherent rotation region, does not lead to a clear change of the remanent total energy but a rise time longer than 50ps does result in a distinct increase in the remanent exchange energy, which enhances the magnetization ringing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicMagnetic properties of thin filmsFrench-language works237,207