Optical conductivity of overdoped cuprate superconductors: Application to <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>La</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn><mml:mo>−</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>Sr</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>CuO</mml:mi><mml:mn>4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We argue that recent measurements on both the superfluid density and the optical conductivity of high-quality ${\mathrm{La}}_{2\ensuremath{-}x}{\mathrm{Sr}}_{x}{\mathrm{CuO}}_{4}$ (LSCO) films can be understood almost entirely within the theory of disordered BCS $d$-wave superconductors. The large scattering rates deduced from experiments are shown to arise predominantly from weak scatterers, probably the Sr dopants out of the ${\mathrm{CuO}}_{2}$ plane, and correspond to a significant suppression of ${T}_{c}$ relative to a pure reference state with the same doping. Our results confirm the ``conventional'' viewpoint that the overdoped side of the cuprate phase diagram can be viewed as approaching the BCS weak-coupling description of the superconducting state, with significant many-body renormalization of the plasma frequency. They suggest that, while some of the decrease in ${T}_{c}$ with overdoping may be due to weakening of the pairing, disorder plays an essential role.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".