Ideal spin filters: A theoretical study of electron transmission through ordered and disordered interfaces between ferromagnetic metals and semiconductors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is predicted that certain atomically ordered interfaces between some ferromagnetic metals $(F)$ and semiconductors $(S)$ should act as ideal spin filters that transmit electrons only from the majority spin bands or only from the minority spin bands of the F to the S (and from the S only to the majority spin bands or only to the minority spin bands of the $F)$ at the Fermi energy, even for F with both majority and minority bands at the Fermi level. Criteria for determining which combinations of F, S, and interface should be ideal spin filters are formulated. The criteria depend only on the bulk band structures of the S and F and on the translational symmetries of the S, F, and interface. Several examples of systems that meet these criteria to a high degree of precision are identified. Disordered interfaces between F and S are also studied and it is found that intermixing between the S and F can result in interfaces with spin antifiltering properties, the transmitted electrons being much less spin polarized than those in the ferromagnetic metal at the Fermi energy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".