Magnetization of exsolution intergrowths of hematite and ilmenite: Mineral chemistry, phase relations, and magnetic properties of hemo‐ilmenite ores with micron‐ to nanometer‐scale lamellae from Allard Lake, Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemo‐ilmenite ores from Allard Lake, Quebec, were first studied over 50 years ago. Interest was renewed in these coarsely exsolved oxides, based on the theory of lamellar magnetism as an explanation for the high and stable natural remanent magnetizations (NRMs), 32 to 120 A/m, reported here. To understand the magnetism and evolution of the exsolution lamellae, the microstructures and nanostructures were studied using scanning electron microscopy and transmission electron microscopy (TEM), phase chemistry, and relations between mineral chemistry and the hematite‐ilmenite phase diagram. Cycles of exsolution during slow cooling resulted in lamellae down to 1–2 nm thick. Combined electron microprobe, TEM, and X‐ray diffraction (XRD) results indicate that hematite hosts reached a composition approximately ilmenite (Ilm) 14.4, and ilmenite hosts ∼Ilm 98. The bulk of the very stable NRM, which shows thermal unblocking ∼595–620°C, was acquired during final exsolution in the two‐phase region canted antiferromagnetic R c hematite + R ilmenite. Hysteresis measurements show a very strong anisotropy, with a stronger coercivity normal to, than parallel to, the basal plane orientation of the lamellae. Magnetic saturation (Ms) values are up to 914 A/m, compared to 564 A/m predicted for a modally equivalent spin‐canted hematite corrected for ∼15% R2+TiO3 substitution. Low‐temperature hysteresis, AC‐susceptibility measurements, and Mössbauer results indicate a Néel temperature (TN) of the geikielite‐substituted ilmenite at ∼43 K. The low‐temperature hysteresis and AC‐susceptibility measurements also show a cluster‐spin‐glass‐like transition near 20 K. Below TN of ilmenite an exchange bias occurs with a 40 mT shift at 10 K.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".