MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Phenomenological description of competing antiferromagnetism and d-wave superconductivity in high $T_{c}$ cuprates

2002· preprint· en· W1639501033 on OpenAlexaff
Bumsoo Kyung, A.–M. S. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2002
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPseudogapPairingPhysicsAntiferromagnetismCondensed matter physicsSuperfluiditySuperconductivityCuprateCoherence lengthCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)ExcitationDopingQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper the phase diagram of high $T_{c}$ cuprates is {\it qualitatively} studied in the context of competing orders: antiferromagnetism, d-wave superconductivity and $d$-density wave. {\it Local} correlation functions are estimated from a mean-field solution of the $t-J$ Hamiltonian. With decreasing doping the superconducting mean-field $T^{MF}_{c}$ and order parameter $d$ begin to decrease below some characteristic doping $x_{c} \simeq 0.2$ where short-range antiferromagnetic correlations begin to develop. {\it Dynamical} properties that involve the energy spectrum, such as the normal state pseudogap, are calculated from effective interactions that are consistent with the above-mentioned local correlation functions. The total excitation gap $Δ_{tg}$ (in the superconducting state) and the normal state pseudogap $Δ_{pg}$ are in good agreement with experimental results. Properties of the condensate are estimated using an effective pairing interaction $V_{eff}$ which takes into account (pair breaking) antiferromagnetic correlations. These condensate properties include condensation energy U(0), coherence gap $Δ_{cg}$ and critical field $H_{c2}$. The calculated coherence gap closely follows the doping dependence of $T_{c}$ or $d$, and is approximately given as $Δ_{cg} \sim Δ_{tg}-Δ_{pg}$ within our numerical uncertainties. The systematic decrease of superfluidity ($d$, U(0), $Δ_{cg}$, $H_{c2}$), and systematic increase of $Δ_{pg}$ and $Δ_{tg}$ with decreasing doping below $x_{c}$ have their natural explanation in our approach. The overall description is however qualitative since it does not appear possible to obtain results that are in quantitative agreement with experiment for all physical quantities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.065 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)→Same topicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism→French-language works237,207→