First Order Reversal Curves (FORC) Diagrams of Co Nanowire Arrays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nanowire arrays of Co and Ni have been obtained by current pulse electrodeposition into nanoporous alumina templates. By adjusting the pH of the bath, the microstructure of the Co wires was tailored, resulting in two types of arrays of crystalline Co--hcp, with c-axis nominally parallel (Co (c parallel)), or nominally perpendicular (Co (c perpendicular)) to the wire. First-order reversal curve (FORC) diagrams provide information on average coercivity of the individual nanowire and the factors influencing the field created in the saturated array by the magnetostatic interactions. The dependences of this field on array geometry (wire length and diameter) and saturation magnetization were found to be in excellent agreement with theoretical predictions from a micromagnetic model. For arrays with lower wire diameter, the average coercivity of the individual wires is systematically higher than the coercivity of the array. The most important difference between the two Co series is in the dependence of the FORC diagrams on the wire diameter, with the Co (cl) showing significant pattern changes at large diameters. Two possible sources of those changes are 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".