MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986897079 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.71.014506

Origin of anomalous low-temperature downturns in the thermal conductivity of cuprates

2005· article· en· W1986897079 on OpenAlexaff
M. F. Smith, Johnpierre Paglione, M. B. Walker, Louis Taillefer

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsRegroupement Québécois sur les Matériaux de PointeUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCondensed matter physicsThermal conductivitySuperconductivityCuprateElectronPhononDecoupling (probability)PhysicsHeat currentMaterials scienceThermodynamicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We show that the anomalous decrease in the thermal conductivity of cuprates below $300\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{mK}$, as has been observed recently in several cuprate materials including ${\mathrm{Pr}}_{2\ensuremath{-}x}{\mathrm{Ce}}_{x}\mathrm{Cu}{\mathrm{O}}_{7\ensuremath{-}\ensuremath{\delta}}$ in the field-induced normal state, is due to the thermal decoupling of phonons and electrons in the sample. Upon lowering the temperature, the phonon-electron heat transfer rate decreases and, as a result, a heat current bottleneck develops between the phonons, which can in some cases be primarily responsible for heating the sample, and the electrons. The contribution that the electrons make to the total low-$T$ heat current is thus limited by the phonon-electron heat transfer rate, and falls rapidly with decreasing temperature, resulting in the apparent low-$T$ downturn of the thermal conductivity. We obtain the temperature and magnetic field dependence of the low-$T$ thermal conductivity in the presence of phonon-electron thermal decoupling and find good agreement with the data in both the normal and superconducting states.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.293
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations57
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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