<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mmultiscripts><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">La</mml:mi><mml:mprescripts/><mml:none/><mml:mn>139</mml:mn></mml:mmultiscripts></mml:math> NMR investigation of the interplay between lattice, charge, and spin dynamics in the charge-ordered high-<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math> cuprate <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>La</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1.875</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>Ba</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn>0.125</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>CuO</mml:mi><mml:mn>4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the interplay between the lattice, charge, and spin dynamics in charge-ordered high ${T}_{c}$ cuprate ${\mathrm{La}}_{1.875}{\mathrm{Ba}}_{0.125}{\mathrm{CuO}}_{4}\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}({T}_{c}=4\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}\mathrm{K})$ based on the inverse Laplace transform (ILT) analysis of the $^{139}\mathrm{La}$ nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate $1/{T}_{1}$ (dubbed ${\mathrm{ILTT}}_{1}$ analysis hereafter). A major thrust of the ${\mathrm{ILTT}}_{1}$ analysis is that one can deduce the probability density function $P(1/{T}_{1})$ of distributed $1/{T}_{1}$. We demonstrate that $1/{T}_{1}^{\text{lm}}$, defined as the log mean (i.e., the center of gravity on a logarithmic scale) of $P(1/{T}_{1})$, can be well approximated by $1/{T}_{1}^{\text{str}}$ deduced from the phenomenological stretched fit; however, $P(1/{T}_{1})$ can provide much richer insight into how the lattice, charge, and spin fluctuations and their distribution develop near and below the long-range charge order at ${T}_{\text{charge}}\ensuremath{\sim}54\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}\mathrm{K}$. Upon entering the charge-ordered state, a divergent increase of $1/{T}_{1}^{\text{lm}}$ toward the spin ordering at ${T}_{\text{spin}}^{\ensuremath{\mu}\text{SR}}\ensuremath{\simeq}35\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}\mathrm{K}$ is accompanied by an asymmetric broadening of $P(1/{T}_{1})$. Even deep inside the charge-ordered state, $1/{T}_{1}$ at a gradually diminishing fraction of $^{139}\mathrm{La}$ sites continues to slow down as temperature is lowered, as expected for canonical superconducting ${\mathrm{CuO}}_{2}$ planes without enhanced spin fluctuations. The fraction of such canonical $^{139}\mathrm{La}$ sites almost disappears by $\ensuremath{\simeq}40\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}\mathrm{K}$. In contrast, nearly half of the $^{139}\mathrm{La}$ sites in ${\mathrm{La}}_{1.885}{\mathrm{Sr}}_{0.115}{\mathrm{CuO}}_{4}\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}({T}_{\text{charge}}\ensuremath{\simeq}80\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}\mathrm{K})$ still exhibit the canonical behavior without enhanced spin fluctuations even near its ${T}_{c}=31\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}\mathrm{K}$. These contrasting behaviors explain why superconductivity in ${\mathrm{La}}_{1.875}{\mathrm{Ba}}_{0.125}{\mathrm{CuO}}_{4}$ is more strongly suppressed than in ${\mathrm{La}}_{1.885}{\mathrm{Sr}}_{0.115}{\mathrm{CuO}}_{4}$ despite the lower onset temperature of the charge order.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.460 | 0.574 |
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".