MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293879704 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.93.214431

Challenges in design of Kitaev materials: Magnetic interactions from competing energy scales

2016· article· en· W2293879704 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stephen M. Winter, Ying Li, Harald O. Jeschke, Roser Valentí

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. B./Physical review. B · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Condensed Matter Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChina Scholarship CouncilDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsAnisotropyPhysicsRange (aeronautics)Condensed matter physicsDiagonalCoupling (piping)Spin (aerodynamics)Statistical physicsQuantum spin liquidTheoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsMaterials scienceThermodynamicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much interest has emerged in the realization of materials with quantum spin liquid ground states, which would provide fertile ground for realizing exotic excitations. Three ``Kitaev'' spin liquid candidate materials have been proposed -- Na${}_{2}$IrO${}_{3}$, $\ensuremath{\alpha}$-RuCl${}_{3}$, and $\ensuremath{\alpha}$-Li${}_{2}$IrO${}_{3}$ -- and there has been many diverging proposals for the most relevant interactions. Here, the authors re-evaluate carefully the magnetic interactions in these materials, using nonperturbative exact diagonalization methods. The results clarify misconceptions in the literature and help estimate the potential for realizing the spin liquid state in real materials.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations528
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. B./Physical review. BSame topicAdvanced Condensed Matter PhysicsFrench-language works237,207