MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974924157 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.84.174415

Order in a spatially anisotropic triangular antiferromagnet

2011· article· en· W1974924157 on OpenAlexaff
Sedigh Ghamari, Catherine Kallin, Sung-Sik Lee, Erik S. Sørensen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Condensed Matter Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntiferromagnetismPhase diagramCondensed matter physicsRenormalization groupAnisotropyPhysicsHexagonal latticeSpin (aerodynamics)Order (exchange)Spiral (railway)RenormalizationHeisenberg modelLattice (music)Phase (matter)Quantum mechanicsMathematicsMathematical analysisThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phase diagram of the spin-1/2 Heisenberg antiferromagnet on an anisotropic triangular lattice of weakly coupled chains, a model relevant to Cs${}_{2}$CuCl${}_{4}$, is investigated using a renormalization group analysis, which includes marginal couplings important for connecting to numerical studies of this model. In particular, the relative stability of incommensurate spiral spin-density order and collinear antiferromagnetic order is studied. While incommensurate spiral order is found to exist over most of the phase diagram in the presence of a Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interaction, at small interchain and extremely weak DM couplings, collinear antiferromagnetic order can survive. Our results imply that Cs${}_{2}$CuCl${}_{4}$ is well within the part of the phase diagram where spiral order is stable. The implications of the renormalization group analysis for numerical studies, many of which have found spin-liquidlike behavior, are discussed.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations37
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicAdvanced Condensed Matter PhysicsFrench-language works237,207