Structural Origin of Apparent Fermi Surface Pockets in Angle-Resolved Photoemission of<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi>Bi</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>Sr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn><mml:mo>−</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>La</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>CuO</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn>6</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>δ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We observe apparent hole pockets in the Fermi surfaces of single-layer Bi-based cuprate superconductors from angle-resolved photoemission. From detailed low-energy electron diffraction measurements and an analysis of the angle-resolved photoemission polarization dependence, we show that these pockets are not intrinsic but arise from multiple overlapping superstructure replicas of the main and shadow bands. We further demonstrate that the hole pockets reported recently from angle-resolved photoemission [Meng et al., Nature (London) 462, 335 (2009)] have a similar structural origin and are inconsistent with an intrinsic hole pocket associated with the electronic structure of a doped CuO₂ plane.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.723 | 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".