Magnetic ordering and fluctuation in Kagome lattice anti-ferromagnets, Fe and Cr jarosites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jarosite family compounds, KFe3(OH)6(SO4)2 (abbreviated to Fe jarosite) and KCr3(OH)6(SO4)2 (Cr jarosite) are typical examples of Heisenberg anti-ferromagnets on the Kagome lattice and have been investigated by means of magnetization and NMR experiments. The susceptibility of Cr jarosite deviates from the CurieWeiss law due to the short-range spin correlation below about 150 K and shows the magnetic transition at 4.2 K, while Fe jarosite has the transition at 65 K. The measured susceptibility fits well with the calculated one on the high-temperature expansion for the Heisenberg anti-ferromagnet on the Kagome lattice. The values of the exchange interactions of Cr jarosite and Fe jarosite are derived to be JCr = 4.9 K and JFe = 23 K, respectively. The 1H-NMR spectra of Fe jarosite suggest that the ordered spin structure is the q = 0 type 120° configuration with +1 chirality. The transition is considered to be caused by a weak single-ion type anisotropy. The spin-lattice relaxation rate, 1/T1, of Fe jarosite in the ordered phase decreases sharply with decreasing temperature and can be well explained by the two-magnon process of spin wave with the anisotropy. PACS No.: 75.25+z
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".