MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Electronic Tuning and Uniform Superconductivity in<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi>CeCoIn</mml:mi><mml:mn>5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math>

2012· article· lv· W2063378181 on OpenAlexaff
Krzysztof Gofryk, F. Ronning, Jian‐Xin Zhu, Min‐Nan Ou, Paul H. Tobash, Stanislav S. Stoyko, Xin Lu, Arthur Mar, Tuson Park, E. D. Bauer, J. D. Thompson, Z. Fisk

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRare-earth and actinide compounds
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDopantSuperconductivityCondensed matter physicsDopingPhase diagramMaterials sciencePhysicsPhase (matter)Quantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report a globally reversible effect of electronic tuning on the magnetic phase diagram in CeCoIn(5) driven by electron (Pt and Sn) and hole (Cd, Hg) doping. Consequently, we are able to extract the superconducting pair breaking component for hole and electron dopants with pressure and codoping studies, respectively. We find that these nominally nonmagnetic dopants have a remarkably weak pair breaking effect for a d-wave superconductor. The pair breaking is weaker for hole dopants, which induce magnetic moments, than for electron dopants. Furthermore, both Pt and Sn doping have a similar effect on superconductivity despite being on different dopant sites, arguing against the notion that superconductivity lives predominantly in the CeIn(3) planes of these materials. In addition, we shed qualitative understanding on the doping dependence with density functional theory calculations.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.236 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicRare-earth and actinide compoundsFrench-language works237,207