MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975525080 · doi:10.1119/1.2929671

Electric fields in steady-state superconductivity according to London theory

2008· article· en· W1975525080 on OpenAlexaff
B. Nasmith, N. Gauthier

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of CanadaRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsElectric fieldSuperconductivityCondensed matter physicsMagnetic fieldSupercurrentElectronCharge (physics)Field (mathematics)Electric chargeElectric potentialQuantum electrodynamicsQuantum mechanicsVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We show that a London superconductor in a steady uniform external magnetic field must support an electric field in its interior. The existence of an electric field implies that a superconductor has a nonvanishing charge in its interior, a fact consistent with measurements of charge imbalance in steady-state superconductivity. We model the superconducting state as a collisionless zero-temperature electron gas. The London relation between the supercurrent velocity field and the vector potential is used to show the existence of an induced electric field. We argue that the inhomogeneities in the charge density give rise to a pressure gradient which we describe with the Fermi gas model. By analyzing the electric field, we show that there are two length scales in the system — the London penetration depth and a length associated with the compressibility of the electron gas. We determine the net electric potential in the interior of the superconductor.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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 studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PhysicsSame topicPhysics of Superconductivity and MagnetismFrench-language works237,207