MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337764087 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.91.245136

Berry phase in cuprate superconductors

2015· article· en· W2337764087 on OpenAlexafffund
N. Doiron-Leyraud, Thomas Szkopek, T. Pereg-Barnea, Cyril Proust, G. Gervais

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchMcGill UniversityUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsGeometric phaseCondensed matter physicsCuprateSuperconductivityPhysicsPhase (matter)Quantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The geometrical Berry phase is widely recognized as having profound implications for the properties of electronic systems. Over the last decade or so, the Berry phase has been essential to our understanding of new materials such as graphene and topological insulators. In general, a nontrivial Berry phase is a result of band crossing as in the case of a massless Dirac point. The Berry phase can be accessed in quantum oscillation measurements as it contributes to the phase mismatch of electrons in their cyclotron orbits. With their enigmatic pseudogap and superconducting phases, the cuprates are materials where the Berry phase is thus far unknown. Based on quantum oscillation data in the high-field normal state of underdoped cuprates, we determined the Berry phase contribution to the phase mismatch unambiguously in this family of materials. In the hole-doped materials ${\mathrm{YBa}}_{2}{\mathrm{Cu}}_{3}{\mathrm{O}}_{y}, {\mathrm{YBa}}_{2}{\mathrm{Cu}}_{4}{\mathrm{O}}_{8}$, and ${\mathrm{HgBa}}_{2}{\mathrm{CuO}}_{4+\ensuremath{\delta}}$, a trivial Berry phase of 0 $\mathrm{mod}(2\ensuremath{\pi}$) is systematically observed, while the electron-doped ${\mathrm{Nd}}_{2\ensuremath{-}x}{\mathrm{Ce}}_{x}{\mathrm{CuO}}_{4}$ exhibits a significant nonzero Berry phase of $1.4\ensuremath{\pi}$. Our results set significant constraints on the microscopic description of the high-field normal state and, in particular, do not support a nodal structure or broken time-reversal symmetry in the hole-doped compounds.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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