MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526353755 · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/18/8/083029

Spin gap in heavy fermion compound UBe<sub>13</sub>

2016· article· en· W2526353755 on OpenAlexaff
Vyacheslav G. Storchak, J. H. Brewer, D. G. Eshchenko, P. W. Mengyan, Oleg E. Parfenov, Andrey M. Tokmachev, P. Dosanjh, Z. Fisk, J. L. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Journal of Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRare-earth and actinide compounds
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBasic Energy SciencesRussian Science FoundationRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsPhysicsCondensed matter physicsMuon spin spectroscopyMagnetoresistanceSuperconductivityAnomaly (physics)Spin (aerodynamics)Fermi liquid theoryMagnetic fieldFermionCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)ElectronQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heavy fermion (HF) compounds are well known for their unique properties, such as narrow bandwidths, loss of coherence in a metal, non-Fermi-liquid behaviour, unconventional superconductivity, huge magnetoresistance etc. While these materials have been known since the 1970s, there is still considerable uncertainty regarding the fundamental mechanisms responsible for some of these features. Here we report transverse-field muon spin rotation (μ +SR) experiments on the canonical HF compound UBe13 in the temperature range from 0.025 to 300 K and in magnetic fields up to 7 T. The μ +SR spectra exhibit a sharp anomaly at 180 K. We present a simple explanation of the experimental findings identifying this anomaly with a gap in the spin excitation spectrum of f-electrons opening near 180 K. It is consistent with anomalies discovered in heat capacity, NMR and optical conductivity measurements of UBe13, as well as with the new resistivity data presented here. The proposed physical picture may explain several long-standing mysteries of UBe13 (as well as other HF systems).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.241 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Journal of PhysicsSame topicRare-earth and actinide compoundsFrench-language works237,207