MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088719461 · doi:10.1142/s0129055x04001959

ON THE SECOND CRITICAL FIELD FOR A GINZBURG–LANDAU MODEL WITH FERROMAGNETIC INTERACTIONS

2004· review· en· W2088719461 on OpenAlexaff
Stan Alama, Lia Bronsard

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Mathematical Physics · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperconductivityPhysicsCondensed matter physicsCritical fieldGinzburg–Landau theoryMagnetic fieldFerromagnetismField (mathematics)Spin (aerodynamics)Coupling constantEnergy functionalMeasure (data warehouse)Coupling (piping)Energy (signal processing)Quantum mechanicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a two-dimensional Ginzburg–Landau model for superconductors which exhibit ferromagnetic ordering in the superconducting phase, introduced by physicists to describe unconventional p-wave superconductors. In this model the magnetic field is directly coupled to a vector-valued order parameter in the energy functional. We show that one effect of spin coupling is to increase the second critical field Hc2, the value of the applied magnetic field at which superconductivity is lost in the bulk. Indeed, when the spin coupling is strong we show that the upper critical field is no longer present, confirming predictions in the physics literature. We treat the energy density as a measure, and show that the order parameter converges (as the Ginzburg–Landau parameter κ→∞) in an average sense to a constant determined by the average energy.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in Mathematical PhysicsSame topicPhysics of Superconductivity and MagnetismFrench-language works237,207