MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2479942891 · doi:10.1038/ncomms14986

Simulation of the NMR response in the pseudogap regime of the cuprates

2017· article· en· W2479942891 on OpenAlexaff
Xi Chen, J. P. F. LeBlanc, Emanuel Gull

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersDivision of Materials ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPseudogapKnight shiftCondensed matter physicsPhysicsSpin (aerodynamics)CuprateSuperconductivityRelaxation (psychology)Thermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pseudogap in the cuprate high-temperature superconductors was discovered as a suppression of the Knight shift and spin relaxation time measured in nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) experiments. However, theoretical understanding of this suppression in terms of the magnetic susceptiblility of correlated itinerant fermion systems was so far lacking. Here we study the temperature and doping evolution of these quantities on the two-dimensional Hubbard model using cluster dynamical mean field theory. We recover the suppression of the Knight shift and the linear-in-T spin echo decay that increases with doping. The relaxation rate shows a marked increase as T is lowered but no indication of a pseudogap on the Cu site, and a clear downturn on the O site, consistent with experimental results on single layer materials but different from double layer materials. The consistency of these results with experiment suggests that the pseudogap is well described by strong short-range correlation effects.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicPhysics of Superconductivity and MagnetismFrench-language works237,207