MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340613051 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2016-0526

Analytical study of holographic superconductors with exponential nonlinear electrodynamics

2016· article· en· W2340613051 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmad Sheykhi, Fatemeh Shaker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShiraz UniversityResearch Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics of Maragha
KeywordsPhysicsQuantum electrodynamicsCritical exponentNonlinear systemCritical phenomenaSuperconductivityScalar fieldGauge theoryHolographyQuantum mechanicsMathematical physicsPhase transition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the Sturm–Liouville eigenvalue problem, we analytically study several properties of holographic s-wave superconductors with exponential nonlinear (EN) electrodynamics in the background of Schwarzschild anti-de Sitter black holes. We assume the probe limit in which the scalar and gauge fields do not back react on the background metric. We show that for this system, one can still obtain an analytical relation between the critical temperature and the charge density. Interestingly enough, we find that EN electrodynamics decreases the critical temperature, Tc, of the holographic superconductors compared to the linear Maxwell field. This implies that the nonlinear electrodynamics make the condensation harder. The analytical results obtained in this paper are in good agreement with the existing numerical results. We also compute the critical exponent near the critical temperature and find out that it is still 1/2, which seems to be a universal value in mean field theory.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207