Magnetic memory and coupling between spin‐canted and defect magnetism in hematite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saturation isothermal remanent magnetization (SIRM) has been studied on submicron hematite powders with grain sizes between 0.12 and 0.52 μ m and on 2 to 5 mm natural hematite single crystals before and after zero‐field cycling through the Morin transition ( T M ). SIRM cooling and warming curves for single‐domain (SD) crystals are similar to those of multidomain (MD) hematites. Both have similar remanence losses at T M (97–98% of the original SIRM), a similar defect moment below T M (2–3% of initial SIRM), and similar memory (30–40% of initial SIRM). Regardless of grain size, higher SIRM memory ratios are associated with higher defect moments below T M . In SD and MD hematites alike, room temperature magnetic memory seems to be an amplification of residual weak ferromagnetism that persists even at very low temperatures, much below T M . Applying a strong field to initially demagnetized SD and MD hematites at 20 K produced a substantial SIRM, which spontaneously increased by a factor 10–28 upon crossing the transition at T M . These observations imply that some spins do not participate in the general rotation from the ferromagnetic c plane to the antiferromagnetic c axis below T M . The defect moment of these spins serves to restore preferred directions of spins and ferromagnetic domains during zero‐field warming through the Morin transition and is thus responsible for the memory phenomenon. The existence of a weak ferromagnetic moment in antiferromagnetic hematite below T M is also indicated by colloid patterns observed by Gallon. We propose that the mechanism of memory is clusters of spins pinned magnetoelastically by lattice defects. These spins rotate only partially out of the basal plane during cooling through T M . Some basal plane anisotropy, also magnetoelastic in origin, must remain below T M in order to explain the existence of low‐temperature SIRM and also to guide spin nuclei into preferred orientations above T M on rewarming through the transition in zero field.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".