MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Non-Zhang-Rice Singlet Character of the First Ionization State of T-CuO

2016· article· en· W2260958023 on OpenAlexafffund
Clemens P. J. Adolphs, Simon Moser, G. A. Sawatzky, Mona Berciu

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsCupratePhysicsQuasiparticleCondensed matter physicsTetragonal crystal systemSinglet stateReciprocal latticeAngle-resolved photoemission spectroscopyPhenomenology (philosophy)Electronic structureQuantum mechanicsSuperconductivityDiffraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We argue that tetragonal CuO (T-CuO) has the potential to finally settle long-standing modeling issues for cuprate physics. We compare the one-hole quasiparticle (qp) dispersion of T-CuO to that of cuprates, in the framework of the strongly correlated (U_{dd}→∞) limit of the three-band Emery model. Unlike in CuO_{2}, magnetic frustration in T-CuO breaks the C_{4} rotational symmetry and leads to strong deviations from the Zhang-Rice singlet picture in parts of the reciprocal space. Our results are consistent with angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy data but in sharp contradiction to those of a one-band model previously suggested for them. These differences identify T-CuO as an ideal material to test a variety of scenarios proposed for explaining cuprate phenomenology.

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 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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicPhysics of Superconductivity and MagnetismFrench-language works237,207