MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991101416 · doi:10.1088/1361-648x/ab5c7b

Absence of magnetic ordering in the spin liquid candidate Ca <sub>3</sub> Cu <sub>2</sub> GeV <sub>2</sub> O <sub>12</sub>

2019· article· en· W2991101416 on OpenAlexaff
Joey A. Lussier, Brooke N. Richtik, Cole Mauws, J. W. Lynn, C. R. Wiebe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Condensed Matter · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Condensed Matter Physics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrustrationAntiferromagnetismQuantum spin liquidCondensed matter physicsNeutron diffractionSpin (aerodynamics)MagnetometerGeometrical frustrationHeat capacityCopperMaterials scienceCrystallographyChemistryPhysicsMagnetic fieldSpin polarizationCrystal structureNuclear physicsElectronThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Typically, quantum spin liquid candidates can be found in materials with a combination of geometrical frustration along with low spin. Due to its spin of S = 1/2 the copper (II) ion is often present in the discussion on spin liquid candidates. The solid state compound Ca 3 Cu 2 GeV 2 O 12 is a material that crystallizes in the garnet structure (s.g. #230, Ia -3 d ), where 3D frustration is known to occur. Heat capacity has shown a lack of magnetic ordering down to 0.35 K, confirmed with low temperature neutron diffraction to 0.07 K. This system displays a Weiss temperature of −0.93(1) K indicating net antiferromagnetic interactions and significant J 1 – J 2 competition causing frustration. Using both neutron and x-ray diffraction along with heat capacity and magnetometry, the work presented here shows Ca 3 Cu 2 GeV 2 O 12 has potential as a new spin liquid candidate.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.216 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Condensed MatterSame topicAdvanced Condensed Matter PhysicsFrench-language works237,207