MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046389689 · doi:10.1139/p01-108

Magnetic ordering and fluctuation in Kagome lattice anti-ferromagnets, Fe and Cr jarosites

2001· article· en· W2046389689 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Nishiyama, T Morimoto, S. Maegawa, Toshiya Inami, Yoshio Oka

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Condensed Matter Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJarositeCondensed matter physicsMagnetizationFerromagnetismPhysicsAnisotropyCurie temperatureLattice (music)Heisenberg modelChemistryMagnetic fieldInorganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jarosite family compounds, KFe 3 (OH) 6 (SO 4 ) 2 (abbreviated to Fe jarosite) and KCr 3 (OH) 6 (SO 4 ) 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 Curie–Weiss 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 J Cr = 4.9 K and J Fe = 23 K, respectively. The 1 H-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/T 1 , 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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Condensed Matter PhysicsFrench-language works237,207