MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085105911 · doi:10.1063/1.2711714

Influence of quenching rate on the microstructure and magnetic properties of melt-spun L10-FePt∕Fe2B nanocomposite magnets

2007· article· en· W2085105911 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Zhang, Kunio Yubuta, Parmanand Sharma, Akihiro Makino, Akihisa Inoue

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetic Properties of Alloys
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanocompositeMaterials scienceMelt spinningCoercivityRemanenceMicrostructureAmorphous solidQuenching (fluorescence)MagnetChemical engineeringHomogeneousComposite materialCondensed matter physicsMagnetizationCrystallographySpinningMagnetic fieldThermodynamicsChemistryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quenching rate, which is dependent on the surface velocity (Vs) of Cu wheel during melt spinning, has significant influence on the formation of nanocomposite structure in the Fe52Pt32B18 melt-spun ribbons. The L10-FePt∕Fe2B hard magnetic nanocomposite structure was formed at Vs=20–37m∕s, while the soft magnetic fcc-FePt+amorphous phases were formed at Vs=40–50m∕s. The ribbons melt spun at Vs=37m∕s exhibit in-plane coercivity (Hci)=760kA∕m, remanence (Br)=0.71T, and energy product (BH)max=93.4kJ∕m3. The Br=0.74–0.77T, Hci=681–718kA∕m, and (BH)max=101–108kJ∕m3 were obtained for the ribbons melt spun at Vs=50m∕s and annealed at 748–773K for 900s. The improvement in hard magnetic properties is due to the formation of more finer and homogeneous nanocomposite structure, which results in the enhancement in exchange coupling among the nanosized hard L10-FePt and soft Fe2B magnetic phases.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicMagnetic Properties of AlloysFrench-language works237,207