Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shortly after the discovery in 1994 of superconductivity in Sr(2)RuO(4), it was proposed on theoretical grounds that the superconducting state may have chiral p-wave symmetry analogous to the A phase of superfluid (3)He. Substantial experimental evidence has since accumulated in favor of this pairing symmetry, including several interesting recent results related to broken time-reversal symmetry (BTRS) and vortices with half of the usual superconducting flux quantum. Great interest surrounds the possibility of chiral p-wave order in Sr(2)RuO(4), since this state may exhibit topological order analogous to that of a quantum Hall state, and can support such exotic physics as Majorana fermions and non-Abelian winding statistics, which have been proposed as one route to a quantum computer. However, serious discrepancies remain in trying to connect the experimental results to theoretical predictions for chiral p-wave order. In this paper, I review a broad range of experiments on Sr(2)RuO(4) that are sensitive to p-wave pairing, triplet superconductivity and time-reversal symmetry breaking and compare these experiments to each other and to theoretical predictions. In this context, the evidence for triplet pairing is strong, although some puzzles remain. The 'smoking gun' experimental results for chiral p-wave order, those which directly look for evidence of BTRS in the superconducting state of Sr(2)RuO(4), are most perplexing when the results are compared with each other and to theoretical predictions. Consequently, the case for chiral p-wave superconductivity in Sr(2)RuO(4) remains unresolved, suggesting the need to consider either significant modifications to the standard chiral p-wave models or possible alternative pairing symmetries. Recent ideas along these lines are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".