MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963968509 · doi:10.1139/p01-083

Ground state of an Ising-type spin-1/2 chain with competing interactions

2001· article· en· W1963968509 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Takashi Tonegawa, H. Matsumoto, Toshiya Hikihara, Makoto Kaburagi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum many-body systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University
KeywordsPhysicsGround statePhase diagramIsing modelCondensed matter physicsHamiltonian (control theory)FerromagnetismMagnetizationSpin (aerodynamics)Type (biology)Phase (matter)Quantum mechanicsThermodynamicsMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ground state of an Ising-type spin- 1 / 2 chain with ferromagnetic bond-alternating nearest-neighbor and anti-ferromagnetic uniform next-nearest-neighbor interactions is studied by using the exact-diagonalization method and the density-matrix renormalization-group method. The Hamiltonian describing the system is expressed as H = – Σ i h 2i–1,2i – J 1 Σ i h 2i,2i+1 + J 2 Σ i h i,i+2 with h i,i' = γ(S i x S i' x + S i y S i' y ) + S i z S i' z , where J 1 [Formula: see text] 0, J 2 [Formula: see text] 0, and 1 > γ [Formula: see text] 0. Special attention is paid to the ground-state phase diagram on the J 1 versus J 2 plane for a given value of γ. The phase diagram is composed of the ferromagnetic, intermediate, and up-up-down-down phases, the intermediate phase being characterized by its magnetization, which takes finite but unsaturated values. The phase diagram obtained for γ = 0.5 shows that the region of the intermediate phase for a given value of J 1 is widest when J 1 = 1.0 and becomes narrower rather rapidly as J 1 decreases or increases from 1.0. The J 2 -dependence of the ground-state magnetization for γ = 0.5 and J 1 = 0.85 is also discussed. PACS Nos.: 75.10Jm, 75.40Mg

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicQuantum many-body systemsFrench-language works237,207