Fincher-Burke spin excitations and<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>ω</mml:mi><mml:mo>∕</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math>scaling in insulating<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>La</mml:mi><mml:mn>1.95</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>Sr</mml:mi><mml:mn>0.05</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>CuO</mml:mi><mml:mn>4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insulating ${\mathrm{La}}_{1.95}{\mathrm{Sr}}_{0.05}{\mathrm{CuO}}_{4}$ shares with superconducting cuprates the same Fincher-Burke spin excitations, which usually are observed in itinerant antiferromagnets. The local spectral function satisfies $\ensuremath{\omega}∕T$ scaling above $\ensuremath{\sim}16\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{K}$ for this incommensurate insulating cuprate, together with previous results in commensurate insulating and incommensurate superconducting cuprates, further supporting the general prediction for square-lattice quantum spin $S=1∕2$ systems. The width of incommensurate peaks in ${\mathrm{La}}_{1.95}{\mathrm{Sr}}_{0.05}{\mathrm{CuO}}_{4}$ scales to a similar finite value as at optimal doping, strongly suggesting that they are similarly distant from a quantum critical point. They might both be limited to a finite correlation length by partial spin-glass freezing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.221 | 0.055 |
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".