MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135290906 · doi:10.1029/2004jb003006

Alternating field demagnetization, single‐domain‐like memory, and the Lowrie‐Fuller test of multidomain magnetite grains (0.6–356 μm)

2004· article· en· W2135290906 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Dunlop, Song Xu, Franz Heider

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemanenceDemagnetizing fieldThermoremanent magnetizationMagnetiteSingle domainGrain sizeGeologyNucleationRock magnetismMaterials scienceCondensed matter physicsGreigitePaleomagnetismMagnetizationMineralogyMagnetic domainMagnetic fieldPhysicsGeophysicsMetallurgyThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fundamental question in paleomagnetism is how magnetite grains much larger than single‐domain size preserve stable remanence over millions of years. In an effort to answer this question we measured alternating field (AF) demagnetization of thermoremanent magnetization (TRM) and saturation isothermal remanent magnetization (SIRM) before and after low‐temperature demagnetization (LTD). LTD (zero‐field cycling through 120 K) unpins or nucleates domain walls, reducing the remanence of multidomain grains. We used two sets of sized crushed magnetites (0.6, 1, 3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 110, and 135 μm), one set unannealed and the other annealed, and a set of hydrothermally grown magnetites (0.8, 6.3, 25, 64, 94, and 356 μm). For all sizes, TRM and SIRM memories after LTD are much harder to AF demagnetize than the original remanences. AF demagnetization curves after LTD are flat for the first ∼10 mT. Such initial plateaus are one hallmark of single‐domain behavior. In high‐stress unannealed grains, after‐LTD response depends on grain size, larger grains demagnetizing more easily than smaller ones. In low‐stress annealed and hydrothermal magnetites, after‐LTD response is almost independent of grain size over nearly 3 decades in grain size. This size‐independent behavior could be due to grains in metastable single‐domain states in the smaller‐sized samples, but in >100 μm grains, there must be a source of single‐domain‐like AF behavior within the multidomain grains themselves. We propose an ad hoc model in which LTD triggers domain wall unpinning and nucleation events up to a coercivity threshold, producing the observed initial plateaus in AF demagnetization curves of TRM and SIRM memories. The size‐independent demagnetization behavior of memory in hydrothermal and annealed magnetites is ascribed to nucleation events above the threshold level, and the additional size‐dependent AF demagnetization of memory in high‐stress unannealed grains is explained by wall unpinning from strong stress centers. In both cases the AF properties merely mimic single‐domain behavior. Although LTD memory has single‐domain‐like AF curves and erased remanence has multidomain‐like curves in grains of all sizes, the Lowrie and Fuller [1971] test still works for the annealed samples. For memory, erased fraction and pre‐LTD remanence alike, TRM is more stable than SIRM in fine grains (1 μm), less stable in large grains (135 μm), and of comparable stability in medium‐size grains (9 and 20 μm).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207