MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014425227 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0913711107

Metal-insulator quantum critical point beneath the high <i>T</i> <sub>c</sub> superconducting dome

2010· article· en· W2014425227 on OpenAlexaff
Suchitra E. Sebastian, N. Harrison, M. M. Altarawneh, C. H. Mielke, Ruixing Liang, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, G. G. Lonzarich

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCondensed matter physicsSuperconductivityQuantum critical pointQuasiparticleFermi surfacePhysicsCuprateEffective mass (spring–mass system)Critical fieldQuantum phase transitionQuantum mechanicsPhase transition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An enduring question in correlated systems concerns whether superconductivity is favored at a quantum critical point (QCP) characterized by a divergent quasiparticle effective mass. Despite such a scenario being widely postulated in high T(c) cuprates and invoked to explain non-Fermi liquid transport signatures, experimental evidence is lacking for a critical divergence under the superconducting dome. We use ultrastrong magnetic fields to measure quantum oscillations in underdoped YBa(2)Cu(3)O(6+x), revealing a dramatic doping-dependent upturn in quasiparticle effective mass at a critical metal-insulator transition beneath the superconducting dome. Given the location of this QCP under a plateau in T(c) in addition to a postulated QCP at optimal doping, we discuss the intriguing possibility of two intersecting superconducting subdomes, each centered at a critical Fermi surface instability.

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)0.001
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations135
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicPhysics of Superconductivity and MagnetismFrench-language works237,207