Self-Assembled Magnetic Nanoparticle Layers: Structural Control for Reconfigurable Magnetism and Functional Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We advance soft X-ray vector ptychographic tomography to map the 3D magnetization field in self-assembled superparamagnetic nanoparticles at a liquid–liquid interface, revealing how layered structures influence magnetic ordering. We observe that monolayers with low coordination numbers exhibit weak magnetic order, with magnetic vortices disrupting spin alignment. In contrast, bilayers and trilayers with higher coordination numbers display long-range magnetic order with strong spin correlations across larger distances and a suppression of magnetic vortices. We further quantify the average distance for vortex–antivortex pairs as 26.0 ± 2.0 nm, while vortex–vortex and antivortex–antivortex pairs exhibit larger separations, averaging 44.9 ± 5.2 and 54.1 ± 7.4 nm, respectively. These experimental results are supported by micromagnetic Monte Carlo simulations. Our findings illustrate how layered structures enhance magnetic order and spin correlation in superparamagnetic nanoparticle assemblies, providing a promising approach for tuning magnetic properties in applications such as data storage, microrobotics, and biomedicine.
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".