<I>In Situ</I> Observations of Magnetization Process in Alnico Magnets by Electron Holography and Lorentz Microscopy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The magnetic microstructure of Alnico 5 and Alnico 8 and their magnetization process were investigated systematically at a nanometer scale by means of electron holography and Lorentz microscopy. In particular, the magnetization process in Alnico alloys was visualized for the first time by utilizing a sharp magnetic needle made of sintered Nd2Fe14B in a transmission electron microscope. It was found that the direction of lines of magnetic flux changed at the boundaries between the α1 and α2 phases which were aligned in the direction of the magnetic field applied in the thermomagnetic treatment. In the Lorentz microscope image, these boundaries were observed as white lines and black bands, whose shapes reflected the difference in the shape anisotropy between Alnico 5 and Alnico 8. With an increase in the magnetic field induced by the magnetic needle, the magnetization direction of the domains magnetized in the direction opposite to that of the approaching needle was reversed, and finally a large reversed domain was formed. In both Alnico 5 and Alnico 8, it was shown that the magnetization process was accomplished through an entire magnetization reversal in each grain of the α1 phase.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it