MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974115580 · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22906-6

Anomalous normal fluid response in a chiral superconductor UTe2

2021· article· en· W2974115580 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTopological Materials and Phenomena
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyGordon and Betty Moore FoundationU.S. Department of EnergyDivision of Materials ResearchOffice of ScienceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMAJORANASuperfluidityPairingSuperconductivityConductivityQuantum fluidLiquid crystal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chiral superconductors have been proposed as one pathway to realize Majorana normal fluid at its boundary. However, the long-sought 2D and 3D chiral superconductors with edge and surface Majorana normal fluid are yet to be conclusively found. Here, we report evidence for a chiral spin-triplet pairing state of UTe2 with surface normal fluid response. The microwave surface impedance of the UTe2 crystal was measured and converted to complex conductivity, which is sensitive to both normal and superfluid responses. The anomalous residual normal fluid conductivity supports the presence of a significant normal fluid response. The superfluid conductivity follows the temperature behavior predicted for an axial spin-triplet state, which is further narrowed down to a chiral spin-triplet state with evidence of broken time-reversal symmetry. Further analysis excludes trivial origins for the observed normal fluid response. Our findings suggest that UTe2 can be a new platform to study exotic topological excitations in higher dimension.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 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

Citations66
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicTopological Materials and PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207