Persistence of superconductivity in thin shells beyond Hc1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Ginzburg–Landau theory, a strong magnetic field is responsible for the breakdown of superconductivity. This work is concerned with the identification of the region where superconductivity persists, in a thin shell superconductor modeled by a compact surface [Formula: see text], as the intensity [Formula: see text] of the external magnetic field is raised above [Formula: see text]. Using a mean field reduction approach devised by Sandier and Serfaty as the Ginzburg–Landau parameter [Formula: see text] goes to infinity, we are led to studying a two-sided obstacle problem. We show that superconductivity survives in a neighborhood of size [Formula: see text] of the zero locus of the normal component [Formula: see text] of the field. We also describe intermediate regimes, focusing first on a symmetric model problem. In the general case, we prove that a striking phenomenon we call freezing of the boundary takes place: one component of the superconductivity region is insensitive to small changes in the field.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".