MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068561234 · doi:10.1063/1.2830955

First-order reversal curve diagrams of magnetic entities with mean interaction field: A physical analysis perspective

2008· article· en· W2068561234 on OpenAlexafffund
Fanny Béron, David Ménard, A. Yelon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalRegroupement Québécois sur les Matériaux de Pointe
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMerge (version control)Condensed matter physicsMean field theoryIsotropyPhysicsAnisotropyFerromagnetismSubstructureStatistical physicsDiagramDistribution functionMathematicsOpticsStatisticsThermodynamicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new approach to the quantitative and physical analysis of first-order reversal curve (FORC) diagrams is presented. Each hysteron in the FORC method represents a magnetic cluster. Starting with a model for a ferromagnetic, isotropic, and monodomain sphere, and adding anisotropy and domain structure, three different types of “basic hysterons” are obtained: vertical reversible and irreversible, and linear. The FORC diagrams of basic hysterons with a mean interaction field were obtained by simulation. From them, the relationships between the characteristics of the hysterons and the FORC distribution function were extracted. Different sets of hysterons can lead to the same FORC distribution function. A positive mean interaction field tends to merge the hysterons on the FORC diagram, while a negative mean interaction field introduces repulsion between them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations77
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207