MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022057512 · doi:10.1063/1.2010354

Pinning effects and their breakdown for a Ginzburg–Landau model with normal inclusions

2005· article· en· W2022057512 on OpenAlexaff
Stan Alama, Lia Bronsard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematical Physics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVorticityVortexSuperconductivityBounded functionPhysicsGinzburg–Landau theoryLimit (mathematics)Boundary value problemFunction (biology)Boundary (topology)Mathematical physicsMathematical analysisCondensed matter physicsMathematicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study a Ginzburg–Landau model for an inhomogeneous superconductor in the singular limit as the Ginzburg–Landau parameter κ=1∕ϵ→∞. The inhomogeneity is represented by a potential term V(ψ)=14(a(x)−∣ψ∣2)2, with a given smooth function a(x) which is assumed to become negative in finitely many smooth subdomains, the “normally included” regions. For bounded applied fields (independent of the Ginzburg–Landau parameter κ=1∕ϵ→∞) we show that the normal regions act as “giant vortices,” acquiring large vorticity for large (fixed) applied field hex. For hex=O(∣lnϵ∣) we show that this pinning effect eventually breaks down, and free vortices begin to appear in the superconducting region where a(x)>0, at a point set which is determined by solving an elliptic boundary-value problem. The associated operators are strictly but not uniformly elliptic, leading to some regularity questions to be resolved near the boundaries of the normal regions.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations26
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematical PhysicsSame topicPhysics of Superconductivity and MagnetismFrench-language works237,207