Anisotropy of Stable Single Domain Ferrimagnetic Particles in a Rock Sample from Gyroremanent Magnetization and Comparison with Other Anisotropy Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The orientation of stable single domain (SSD) ferrimagnetic particles in an igneous rock sample was determined by a sensitive technique utilizing gyroremanent magnetization (GRM). Components of GRM were measured in the sample upon exposure to an alternating field (AF) at various orientations in 3 orthogonal planes. The major components of GRM exhibited a sin(2θ) dependence on AF orientation in the respective perpendicular planes. This was in accordance with theory [1] and contrary to some previously reported experimental results on magnetic recording tape, which produced a distorted sin(2θ) dependence of the GRM [1]. The explanation is likely due to the SSD ferrimagnetic particles in the rock sample being more dispersed (less interacting) compared to the highly interacting SSD particles in the magnetic tape sample of the previous study. The GRM results were consistent with another remanence anisotropy method, anisotropy of isothermal remanent magnetization (AIRM). This method again measures the anisotropy of the remanence carrying ferrimagnetic particles, but the IRM is also acquired by larger multidomain (MD) particles as well as by the SSD particles. The results were also consistent with the visible rock anisotropy (petrofabric), the anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS), and the shear wave velocity anisotropy. A comparison of all the methods demonstrated that the fine SSD particles, which make up only a small proportion of the rock, were aligned in quite a similar orientation to that of the main rock forming minerals that constituted the bulk of the sample.
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 | 0.001 | 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".