MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Kronig–Penney model of scalar and vector potentials in graphene

2010· article· en· W2033371609 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Condensed Matter · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphene research and applications
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollimated lightMagnetic fieldPhysicsSuperlatticeGrapheneMagnetic potentialCondensed matter physicsLimitingScalar (mathematics)Vector potentialElectronOpticsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a one-dimensional (1D) superlattice (SL) on graphene consisting of very high and very thin (δ-function) magnetic and potential barriers with zero average potential and zero magnetic field. We calculate the energy spectrum analytically, study it in different limiting cases, and determine the condition under which an electron beam incident on an SL is highly collimated along its direction. In the absence of the magnetic SL the collimation is very sensitive to the value of W/W(s) and is optimal for W/W(s) = 1, where W is the distance between the positive and negative barriers and L = W + W(s) is the size of the unit cell. In the presence of only the magnetic SL the collimation decreases and the symmetry of the spectrum around k(y) is broken for W/W(s) ≠ 1. In addition, a gap opens which depends on the strength of the magnetic field. We also investigate the effect of spatially separated potential and magnetic δ-function barriers and predict a better collimation in specific cases.

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.

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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.245 · 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