Local polar structure and multiferroic properties of (1−<i>x</i>)Bi0.9Dy0.1FeO3−<i>x</i>PbTiO3 solid solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The multiferroic (1–x)[0.9BiFeO3–0.1DyFeO3]–xPbTiO3 (BDF–xPT) solid solution with compositions around the morphotropic phase boundary (x = 0.25, 0.28, 0.31, 0.34, and 0.37) has been synthesized in the form of ceramics. The phase symmetry, microstructure, ferroelectricity, piezoresponse, and ferromagnetic properties have been characterized by various techniques. It is found that, with increasing content of lead titanate from x = 0.25 to x = 0.37, the grain size increases and the ferroelectric property is improved. The ferroelectric performance is further enhanced by the introduction of an excess amount (2%) of TiO2 or by sintering in oxygen atmosphere, which reduces the leakage. The local polar structure is imaged by piezoresponse force microscopy. Both the out-of-plane and in-plane images reveal distinct ferroelectric domain structures, with the amplitude and the average domain size decreasing with the increase of lead titanate amount. Compared with the (1–x)BiFeO3–xPbTiO3 binary solid solution of about the same concentration of PT, the magnetic properties are enhanced in BDF–xPT due to the presence of dysprosium, as demonstrated by the ferromagnetic hysteresis loops displayed at room temperature and at 10 K, but the remnant magnetization decreases with increasing PT content. The simultaneous presence of ferroelectricity and ferromagnetism entitles the BDF–xPT solid solution a room-temperature multiferroic material.
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".