MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120293528 · doi:10.1142/s0219199701000457

PERIODIC VORTEX LATTICES FOR THE LAWRENCE–DONIACH MODEL OF LAYERED SUPERCONDUCTORS IN A PARALLEL FIELD

2001· article· en· W2120293528 on OpenAlexaff
Stan Alama, Lia Bronsard, A. J. Berlinsky

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Contemporary Mathematics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSuperconductivity in MgB2 and Alloys
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperconductivityCondensed matter physicsVortexAnisotropyLattice (music)Josephson effectMagnetic fieldLimit (mathematics)PhysicsEnergy minimizationMathematicsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysisMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the Lawrence–Doniach model for layered superconductors, in which stacks of parallel superconducting planes are coupled via the Josephson effect. We assume that the superconductor is placed in an external magnetic field oriented parallel to the superconducting planes and study periodic lattice configurations in the limit as the Josephson coupling parameter r→0. This limit leads to the "transparent state" discussed in the physics literature, which is observed in very anisotropic high-Tc superconductors at sufficiently high applied fields and below a critical temperature. We use a Lyapunov–Schmidt reduction to prove that energy minimization uniquely determines the geometry of the optimal vortex lattice: a period-2 (in the layers) array proposed by Bulaevskiĭ & Clem. Finally, we discuss the apparent conflict with previous results for finite-width samples, in which the minimizer in the small coupling regime takes the form of "vortex planes" (introduced by Theodorakis and Kuplevakhsky).

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.155 · 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
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

Citations10
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Contemporary MathematicsSame topicSuperconductivity in MgB2 and AlloysFrench-language works237,207