Jahn-Teller versus quantum effects in the spin-orbital material<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:msub><mml:mi>LuVO</mml:mi><mml:mn>3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report on combined neutron and resonant x-ray scattering results, identifying the nature of the spin-orbital ground state and magnetic excitations in ${\mathrm{LuVO}}_{3}$ as driven by the orbital parameter. In particular, we distinguish between models based on orbital-Peierls dimerization, taken as a signature of quantum effects in orbitals, and Jahn-Teller distortions, in favor of the latter. In order to solve this long-standing puzzle, polarized neutron beams were employed as a prerequisite in order to solve details of the magnetic structure, which allowed quantitative intensity analysis of extended magnetic-excitation data sets. The results of this detailed study enabled us to draw definite conclusions about the classical versus quantum behavior of orbitals in this system and to discard the previous claims about quantum effects dominating the orbital physics of ${\mathrm{LuVO}}_{3}$ and similar systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".