MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Scattering and Pairing in Cuprate Superconductors

2010· article· en· W2116058091 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Condensed Matter Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsRegroupement Québécois sur les Matériaux de PointeUniversité de SherbrookeCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPairingPseudogapSuperconductivityCuprateAntiferromagnetismScatteringPhase (matter)Electrical resistivity and conductivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The origin of the exceptionally strong superconductivity of cuprates remains a subject of debate after more than two decades of investigation. Here we follow a new lead: The onset temperature for superconductivity scales with the strength of the anomalous normal-state scattering that makes the resistivity linear in temperature. The same correlation between linear resistivity and T c is found in organic superconductors, for which pairing is known to come from fluctuations of a nearby antiferromagnetic phase, and in pnictide superconductors, for which an antiferromagnetic scenario is also likely. In the cuprates, the question is whether the pseudogap phase plays the corresponding role, with its fluctuations responsible for pairing and scattering. We review recent studies that shed light on this phase—its boundary, its quantum critical point, and its broken symmetries. The emerging picture is that of a phase with spin-density-wave order and fluctuations, in broad analogy with organic, pnictide, and heavy-fermion superconductors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.242 · 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