MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980583898 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.80.235203

Direct observation of the magnetic polaron

2009· article· en· W1980583898 on OpenAlexafffund
Vyacheslav G. Storchak, Oleg E. Parfenov, J. H. Brewer, Peter L. Russo, Scott L. Stubbs, R. L. Lichti, D. G. Eshchenko, E. Morenzoni, Т. Г. Аминов, В. П. Зломанов, Alexander A. Vinokurov, Ray Kallaher, Stephan von Molnár

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsSpintronicsCondensed matter physicsPolaronMagnetic semiconductorMagnetizationMagnetic momentSpinsQuasiparticlePhysicsCharge carrierMagnetic dipoleMagnetic fieldElectronFerromagnetismSuperconductivityQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Semiconductor electronics has so far been based on the transport of charge carriers while storage of information has mainly relied upon the collective interactions of spins. A new discipline known as spintronics proposes to exploit the strong mutual influence of magnetic and electrical properties in magnetic semiconductors, which promise new types of devices and computer technologies. The mechanism for such phenomena involves the concept of magnetic polarons---microscopic clouds of magnetization composed of charge carriers and neighboring magnetic ions---which determine most of the electrical, magnetic, and optical properties of the material. In spite of the importance of this quasiparticle, its observation remains a formidable challenge. Here we report that, using the positive muon as both a donor center and a local magnetic probe, we have been able to generate and detect the magnetic polaron and determine its size and magnetic moment in the magnetic semiconductor EuS.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations42
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicPhysics of Superconductivity and MagnetismFrench-language works237,207