Quantum oscillations and the Fermi surface of high-temperature cuprate superconductors
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
Over 20 years since the discovery of high temperature superconductivity in cuprates (Bednorz and Müller, 1986 [1]), the first convincing observation of quantum oscillations in underdoped YBa 2 Cu 3 O 6.5 (Doiron-Leyraud et al., 2007 [2]) has deeply changed the theoretical landscape relevant to these materials. The Fermi surface is a basic concept of solid state physics, which underpins most physical properties (electrical, thermal, optical, etc.) of a metal. Even in the presence of interactions, this fundamental concept remains robust. While there was little doubt about the existence of a Fermi surface on the overdoped side of the phase diagram of the cuprates, the discovery of quantum oscillations in the underdoped regime was a surprise. The small pockets inferred from the measurements in underdoped YBa 2 Cu 3 O y contrast with the large orbit found in overdoped Tl 2 Ba 2 CuO 6 + δ . A central issue in understanding the phase diagram of high temperature superconductors is the origin of this difference at opposite sides of the superconducting dome. This review aims to shed light on this issue by bringing together recent results of quantum oscillation and transport measurements under high magnetic fields in hole-doped cuprates.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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