Suppression of spontaneous supercurrents in a chiral<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math>-wave superconductor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The superconducting state of strontium ruthenate (SRO) is widely believed to have chiral $p$-wave order that breaks time-reversal symmetry. Such a state is expected to have a spontaneous magnetization, both at sample edges and at domain walls between regions of different chirality. Indeed, muon spin-resonance experiments are interpreted as evidence of spontaneous magnetization due to domain walls or defects in the bulk. However, recent magnetic-microscopy experiments place upper limits on the magnetic fields at the sample edge and surface which are as much as 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the fields predicted theoretically for a somewhat idealized chiral $p$-wave superconductor. We investigate the effects on the spontaneous supercurrents and magnetization of rough and pair-breaking surfaces for a range of parameters within a Ginzburg-Landau formalism. The effects of competing orders nucleated at the surface are also considered. We find the conditions under which the edge currents are significantly reduced while leaving the bulk domain-wall currents intact, are quite limited. The implications for interpreting the existing body of experimental results on superconducting SRO within a chiral $p$-wave model 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".