MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097773635 · doi:10.1142/s0217984920300082

Superconductivity in crystals with spin-orbit coupling

2020· article· en· W3097773635 on OpenAlexafffund
K. V. Samokhin

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Physics Letters B · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicIron-based superconductors research
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPairingPhysicsDegenerate energy levelsSuperconductivityCondensed matter physicsSymmetry (geometry)Wave functionParity (physics)Bloch waveQuantum mechanicsRotational symmetryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electron Bloch states in crystals with spin-orbit coupling do not always transform under symmetry operations in the same way as the pure spin-1/2 states. This has profound consequences for the gap symmetry and nodal structure of superconductors. Based on the generalization of the Ueda–Rice prescription for the Bloch bases in twofold degenerate bands, we develop the general symmetry classification of multi-band superconducting pairing in non-magnetic centrosymmetric crystals. For the intraband pairing, we identify four exceptional cases in which the triplet gap function does not transform under the point group operations as a pseudovector, with a significant impact on the nodal structure. For the interband pairing, we show that the conventional ([Formula: see text]-wave) gap functions can have such unconventional features as triplet components and odd parity. The [Formula: see text]-wave interband pairing can also be odd in momentum and have a triplet component.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Physics Letters BSame topicIron-based superconductors researchFrench-language works237,207