Exchange coupling in FeCoB/Ru, Mo/FeCoB trilayer structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, bilinear (J1) and biquadratic (J2) coupling between two FeCoB layers across Ru and Mo spacer layers is studied. The investigated structures are FM1/Ru and Mo(d)/FM2, where FM1 is Fe/FeCoB, FM2 is FeCoB/NiFe, and d is the thickness of the Ru and Mo spacer layers where d is varied from 0.3 to 1.5 nm. Using a ferromagnetic resonance(FMR) model, we are able to determine J1–2J2 of all as-deposited samples and those annealed at 200 and 300 °C. FMR measurements are also used to extract Gilbert damping of the magnetic films. We also use a micromagnetic model to fit magnetization as a function of field to determine J1 and J2 independently for antiferromagnetically coupled samples. This study shows that the spacer layer thickness range, for which antiferromagnetic coupling between FeCoB layer can be achieved, is reduced with increasing annealing temperature. Antiferromagnetic coupling is not realized in samples annealed at 300 °C. The damping of magnetic layers first rapidly increases and then gradually decreases with an increase in the spacer layer thickness. The exchange coupling and spin pumping in the studied structures are responsible for this trend.
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".