MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081822249 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.76.064504

Muon spin rotation measurements of the superfluid density in fresh and aged superconducting<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Pu</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Co</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ga</mml:mi><mml:mn>5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>

2007· article· lv· W2081822249 on OpenAlexaff
Kazuki Ohishi, R. H. Heffner, G.D. Morris, E. D. Bauer, M. J. Graf, Jian‐Xin Zhu, L. A. Morales, J. L. Sarrao, M. J. Fluss, D. E. MacLaughlin, Wataru Higemoto, T. Ito

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2007
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRare-earth and actinide compounds
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsLondon penetration depthMuon spin spectroscopyCondensed matter physicsSuperfluiditySuperconductivityOrder (exchange)Penetration depthLambdaContext (archaeology)MuonCoupling (piping)Particle physicsQuantum mechanicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have measured the temperature dependence and magnitude of the superfluid density ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{s}(T)$ via the magnetic field penetration depth $\ensuremath{\lambda}(T)$ in $\mathrm{Pu}\mathrm{Co}{\mathrm{Ga}}_{5}$ (nominal critical temperature ${T}_{c0}=18.5\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{K}$) using the muon spin rotation technique in order to investigate the symmetry of the order parameter, and to study the effects of aging on the superconducting properties of a radioactive material. The same single crystals were measured after $25\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\text{days}$ $({T}_{c}=18.25\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{K})$ and $400\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\text{days}$ $({T}_{c}=15.0\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{K})$ of aging at room temperature. Penetration depths $\ensuremath{\lambda}(0)=265(5)$ and $\ensuremath{\geqslant}498(10)\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{nm}$ are derived for the fresh and aged samples, respectively. The temperature dependence of the superfluid density ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{s}(T)∕{\ensuremath{\rho}}_{s}(0)=\ensuremath{\lambda}{(0)}^{2}∕\ensuremath{\lambda}{(T)}^{2}$ is well described in both materials by a model using $d$-wave gap symmetry. Within the context of a strong-coupling dirty $d$-wave model a zero-temperature gap value ${\ensuremath{\Delta}}_{0}=3.0{k}_{B}{T}_{c0}$ is obtained in the fresh sample for a scattering rate $\ensuremath{\Gamma}=0.005\ensuremath{\pi}{k}_{B}{T}_{c0}$, which is consistent with Abrikosov-Gor'kov (AG) pair-breaking theory. This ${\ensuremath{\Delta}}_{0}$ should be compared to the weak-coupling value for a clean $d$-wave gap ${\ensuremath{\Delta}}_{0}=2.14{k}_{B}{T}_{c0}$. In the aged sample the same model yields ${\ensuremath{\Delta}}_{0}=2.4{k}_{B}{T}_{c0}$ for $\ensuremath{\Gamma}=0.010\ensuremath{\pi}{k}_{B}{T}_{c0}$. This value of $\ensuremath{\Gamma}$ is much less than required by the AG pair-breaking formalism. Furthermore, the aged ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{s}(0)$ is reduced by at least 70% compared to the fresh sample, which is also incompatible with $\ensuremath{\Delta}{T}_{c}∕{T}_{c0}\ensuremath{\sim}20%$, according to AG theory. We conclude that the data in aged $\mathrm{Pu}\mathrm{Co}{\mathrm{Ga}}_{5}$ support the postulate that the scattering from radiation-induced defects is not in the limit of the AG theory of an order parameter which is spatially averaged over impurity sites, but rather in the limit of short-coherence-length superconductivity. We show that a model calculation consistent with this assumption fits ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{s}(T)$ in the aged sample rather well.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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