Measuring heterogeneous remanence in paleomagnetism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remanence directions of from the same block‐sample may be inconsistent or unrepresentative due to orientation and location heterogeneity of their remanence‐bearing minerals (RBM). Magnetization‐heterogeneity is usually undetectable at the specimen‐level but we replicated its effects by measuring 8 small specimens with stable magnetizations (8 or 5.2 cm3). These were assembled into a single large multi‐specimen inside 125 cm3 containers that were measured in a Molspin “BigSpin” magnetometer. Large‐specimen remanence directions deflect towards the direction of any strongly magnetized sub‐specimen. Differences between the large‐specimen remanence and that for the group of individually measured sub‐specimens worsened when one sub‐specimen was mis‐oriented. These discrepancies were cancelled or reduced using larger numbers of specimen orientations in the magnetometer. Conventional schemes with 4 or 6 different measurement‐orientations may fail to suppress heterogeneity‐effects whereas our 12‐orientation protocol may succeed. For most specimens, acceptable remanence‐homogeneity is present where similar remanence‐directions are recorded from 4, 6, and 12 different spin‐orientations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".