MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165465297 · doi:10.1063/1.4905543

Model for temperature-dependent magnetization of nanocrystalline materials

2015· article· en· W2165465297 on OpenAlexaff
Q. Bian, M. Niewczas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic properties of thin films
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanocrystalline materialMagnetizationCondensed matter physicsGrain sizeMaterials scienceGrain boundaryMagnetic anisotropyAnisotropyMagnetic fieldPhysicsMetallurgyNanotechnologyMicrostructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A magnetization model of nanocrystalline materials incorporating intragrain anisotropies, intergrain interactions, and texture effects has been extended to include the thermal fluctuations. The method relies on the stochastic Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert theory of magnetization dynamics and permits to study the magnetic properties of nanocrystalline materials at arbitrary temperature below the Currie temperature. The model has been used to determine the intergrain exchange constant and grain boundary anisotropy constant of nanocrystalline Ni at 100 K and 298 K. It is found that the thermal fluctuations suppress the strength of the intergrain exchange coupling and also reduce the grain boundary anisotropy. In comparison with its value at 2 K, the interparticle exchange constant decreases by 16% and 42% and the grain boundary anisotropy constant decreases by 28% and 40% at 100 K and 298 K, respectively. An application of the model to study the grain size-dependent magnetization indicates that when the thermal activation energy is comparable to the free energy of grains, the decrease in the grain size leads to the decrease in the magnetic permeability and saturation magnetization. The mechanism by which the grain size influences the magnetic properties of nc–Ni is discussed.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicMagnetic properties of thin filmsFrench-language works237,207