MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1959322044 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2015-0173

The effect of quasiparticle self-energy on Cd<sub>2</sub>Re<sub>2</sub>O<sub>7</sub> superconductor

2015· article· en· W1959322044 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
F. S. Razavi, Y. Rohanizadegan, Mojtaba Hajialamdari, M. Reedyk, R. K. Kremer, B. Mitrović

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Condensed Matter Physics
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMax-Planck-Gesellschaft
KeywordsQuasiparticlePhysicsSuperconductivityCondensed matter physicsSelf-energyConductanceOrder (exchange)Spectral linePhononEnergy (signal processing)SpectroscopyTransition temperatureElectronQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The magnitude and the temperature dependence of the superconducting order parameter Δ(T) of single crystals of Cd2Re2O7 (Tc = 1.02 K) was measured using point-contact spectroscopy. To fit the conductance spectra and to extract the order parameter at different temperatures we generalized the Blonder–Tinkham–Klapwijk theory by including the self-energy of the quasiparticles into the Bogoliubov equations. This modification enabled excellent fits of the conductance spectra. Δ(T) increases steeply below the superconducting transition temperature of 1.02 K and levels off below ∼0.8 K at a value of 0.22(1) meV, ≈40% larger than the BCS value. Our results indicate the presence of a strong electron–phonon interaction and an enhanced quasiparticle damping and may be related to a possible phase transition within the superconducting region at ∼0.8 K.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Condensed Matter PhysicsFrench-language works237,207