Experimental and simulated properties of colloidally patterned cobalt thin films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patterned magnetic films have potential uses for magnetic data storage. We develop a method to quickly manufacture patterned magnetic films using spin coating of colloidal silica spheres followed by electrodeposition of ferromagnetic cobalt. These templates have been analyzed using scanning electron microscopy and magnetic force microscopy. They possess polycrystalline ordering of the spheres, with the orientation of the crystals radial to the center of spinning. Ferromagnetic cobalt filled the interstitials between the spheres. Model structures were numerically simulated using micromagnetic software. The results of these simulations revealed differences between patterned magnetic films and uniform films. In particular, the coercive field was greater in the patterned films. On the basis of micromagnetic theory and additional simulations, we propose mechanisms to explain these differences. These results matched those reported by others who have produced patterned magnetic films. The magnetic hysteresis behaviour of several representative samples was investigated experimentally at the University of Manitoba. The results from these samples partially confirmed the behaviour seen in the simulations; however, more measurements are needed to make firm conclusions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".