MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144031821 · doi:10.1029/2001jb000486

Theory and application of the Day plot (<i>M</i><sub><i>rs</i></sub>/<i>M</i><sub><i>s</i></sub> versus <i>H</i><sub><i>cr</i></sub>/<i>H</i><sub><i>c</i></sub>) 1. Theoretical curves and tests using titanomagnetite data

2002· article· en· W2144031821 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Dunlop

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetiteGrain sizePlot (graphics)HysteresisMaterials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)MineralogyPhysicsCrystallographyCondensed matter physicsGeologyChemistryStatisticsMathematicsMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although most paleomagnetic and environmental magnetic papers incorporate a Day plot of the hysteresis parameters M rs / M s versus H cr / H c , a comprehensive theory covering superparamagnetic (SP), single‐domain (SD), pseudo‐single‐domain (PSD), and multidomain (MD) (titano)magnetites is lacking. There is no consensus on how to quantify grain‐size trends within the Day plot, how to distinguish MD from SP trends/mixtures, or whether magnetite, titanomagnetites, and other minerals have distinctive trends by which they might be identified. This paper develops the theory of the Day plot parameters for MD, MD + SD, PSD, and SP + SD grains of titanomagnetite (Fe 3 – x Ti x O 4 ) with compositions x = 0 (TM0 or magnetite) and x = 0.6 (TM60). MD grains have a separate trend that intersects the curve for SD + MD mixtures. SP + SD mixtures generate a variety of trends, depending on the SP grain size. All SP + SD curves lie much above those for MD or SD + MD trends, as has been proposed, but not demonstrated, previously. Data for PSD‐size magnetites of many different origins fall along a single trend, but different levels of internal stress shift points for similar grain sizes along the “master curve.” In order to use the Day plot to determine grain size, one must have independent information about the state of internal stress. Theoretical model curves for SD + MD mixtures match the PSD magnetite and TM60 data quite well, although the SD→MD transition region in grain size is much narrower for TM60 than for magnetite. The agreement between PSD data and SD + MD mixing curves implies that PSD behavior is due to superimposed independent SD and MD moments, either in individual or separate grains, and not to exotic micromagnetic structures such as vortices. The theory also matches M rs and H c values in mechanical mixtures of very fine and very coarse grains, although nonlinear mixing theory is required to explain some H cr and H cr / H c data.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1,344
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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