MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046477884 · doi:10.1139/p01-105

Geometric frustration in the mixed layer pnictide oxides

2001· article· en· W2046477884 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Matthew Enjalran, Richard T. Scalettar, Susan M. Kauzlarich

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of GeorgiaLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsPnictogenFrustrationCondensed matter physicsHamiltonian (control theory)BilayerAnisotropyQuantum mechanicsSuperconductivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present results from a Monte Carlo investigation of a simple bilayer model with geometrically frustrated interactions similar to those found in the mixed layer pnictide oxides (Sr 2 Mn 3 Pn 2 O 2 , Pn = As, Sb). Our model is composed of two inequivalent square lattices with nearest-neighbor intralayer and interlayer interactions. We find a ground state composed of two independent Néel-ordered layers when the interlayer exchange is an order of magnitude weaker than the intralayer exchange, as suggested by experiment. We observe this result independent of the number of layers in our model. We find evidence for local orthogonal order between the layers, but it occurs in regions of parameter space that are not experimentally realized. We conclude that frustration caused by nearest-neighbor interactions in the mixed layer pnictide oxides is not sufficient to explain the long-range orthogonal order that is observed experimentally, and that it is likely that other terms (e.g., local anisotropies) in the Hamiltonian are required to explain the magnetic behavior. PACS Nos.: 75.10Hk, 75.40Mg, 75.50-y, 75.25+z

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207