MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stress remagnetization in pyrrhotite-calcite synthetic aggregates

2001· article· en· W2121297861 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Robion, Graham J. Borradaile

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoercivityPyrrhotiteRemanenceMagnetizationDifferential stressGeologyOverburden pressureMaterials scienceCalciteMineralogyStress (linguistics)Deformation (meteorology)Condensed matter physicsComposite materialMagnetic fieldGeotechnical engineeringPyrite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stress-induced remagnetization has been applied to multidomain pyrrhotite–calcite synthetic aggregates in a triaxial rig. Experimental deformation used 150 MPa confining pressure, a constant strain rate of 10−5 s−1 and applied differential stresses of up to 70 MPa. New components of magnetization, parallel to the direction of the pressure vessel field, were added to the pre-deformational magnetization. The intensity of remagnetization (M′ − M0) increases with the intensity of the applied differential stress and affects the coercivity fraction below 15 mT. Bulk shortening is less than 8 per cent, thus grain rotation cannot explain selective remagnetization of the low-coercivity fraction. Remagnetization is thus attributed to deformational viscous remanent magnetization (DVRM). It is observed that high-coercivity (> 15 mT) grains do not remagnetize. There is, however, slight progressive rotation of pre-deformational magnetization with increasing strain up to 8 per cent of bulk shortening. The lack of piezoremanent magnetization in the high-coercivity range may be due to defects introduced in pyrrhotite during sample preparation. Experiments using synthetic pyrrhotite, expected to show low dislocation densities, would be necessary to test this effect.

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 score0.598

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations9
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207