<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CePt</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Si</mml:mi><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math>An unconventional superconductor without inversion center
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most superconducting materials have an inversion center in their crystal lattices. One of few exceptions is the recently discovered heavy-fermion superconductor ${\mathrm{CePt}}_{3}\mathrm{Si}$ [E. Bauer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 027003 (2004)]. In this paper, we analyze the implications of the lack of inversion symmetry for the superconducting pairing. We show that the order parameter is an odd function of momentum, and that there always are lines of zeros in the excitation energy gap for one-component order parameters, which seems to agree with the experimental data. The superconducting phase can be nonuniform, even without external magnetic field, due to the presence of unusual gradient terms in the Ginzburg-Landau free energy. Also, we performed ab initio electronic structure calculations for ${\mathrm{CePt}}_{3}\mathrm{Si},$ which showed that the spin-orbit coupling in this material is strong, and the degeneracy of the bands is lifted everywhere except along some high symmetry lines in the Brillouin zone.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.668 | 0.007 |
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 it