MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021185598 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2007683118

Doping evolution of the Mott–Hubbard landscape in infinite-layer nickelates

2021· article· en· W3021185598 on OpenAlexaff
Berit H. Goodge, Danfeng Li, Kyuho Lee, Motoki Osada, Bai Yang Wang, G. A. Sawatzky, Harold Y. Hwang, Lena F. Kourkoutis

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersGordon and Betty Moore FoundationU.S. Department of EnergyU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsDopingHubbard modelLayer (electronics)Condensed matter physicsPhysicsMaterials scienceNanotechnologySuperconductivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent observation of superconductivity in [Formula: see text] has raised fundamental questions about the hierarchy of the underlying electronic structure. Calculations suggest that this system falls in the Mott-Hubbard regime, rather than the charge-transfer configuration of other nickel oxides and the superconducting cuprates. Here, we use state-of-the-art, locally resolved electron energy-loss spectroscopy to directly probe the Mott-Hubbard character of [Formula: see text] Upon doping, we observe emergent hybridization reminiscent of the Zhang-Rice singlet via the oxygen-projected states, modification of the Nd 5d states, and the systematic evolution of Ni 3d hybridization and filling. These experimental data provide direct evidence for the multiband electronic structure of the superconducting infinite-layer nickelates, particularly via the effects of hole doping on not only the oxygen but also nickel and rare-earth bands.

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 score0.005

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations185
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicPhysics of Superconductivity and MagnetismFrench-language works237,207