MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318837438 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.86.094428

Testing the transverse field Ising model in LiHoF<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mrow/><mml:mn>4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math>using capacitive dilatometry

2012· article· lv· W2318837438 on OpenAlexaff
J L Dunn, Claudia Stahl, Allan MacDonald, Kevin Liu, Yarema Reshitnyk, Woo Seog Sim, R. W. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2012
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsing modelCondensed matter physicsFerromagnetismPhase diagramPhysicsMagnetic fieldTransverse planePhase transitionField (mathematics)Materials sciencePhase (matter)Quantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measurements of thermal expansion and magnetostriction on a single-crystal sample of the Ising ferromagnetic material, LiHoF${}_{4}$, are presented. The strain is measured along the crystallographic $c$ axis (the Ising direction) of the material and the magnetic field is applied transverse to this, in the $ab$ plane. The data are used to extract critical fields and critical temperatures for the ferromagnetic transition, resulting in a phase diagram for this material. The measurements are strongly focused on the very low magnetic field regime, where previous magnetic susceptibility data show a discrepancy with theory based on the transverse field Ising model, although the previous experimental data density is very sparse. The results of this study generate a high-resolution magnetic phase line that is consistent with previous measurements and therefore confirm the discrepancy. These detailed measurements can be used to significantly constrain any future theoretical work which aims to explain the observed behavior.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207