MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220665307 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.105.104406

Spin rectification effect induced by planar Hall effect and its strong impact on spin-pumping measurements

2022· article· en· W4220665307 on OpenAlexaff
Kang He, Jun Cheng, Man Yang, Yi‐Hui Zhang, Longqian Yu, Qi Liu, Liang Sun, B. F. Miao, C.‐M. Hu, Haifeng Ding

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. B./Physical review. B · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum and electron transport phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRectificationSpin Hall effectCondensed matter physicsSpin (aerodynamics)PhysicsPlanarSpin pumpingSymmetry (geometry)Magnetic fieldSpurious relationshipVoltageSpinplasmonicsReversingSign (mathematics)SIGNAL (programming language)Spin polarizationMaterials scienceQuantum mechanicsGeometryElectron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spin pumping is a technique widely used to generate pure spin current and characterize the spin-charge conversion in various systems. The reversing sign of the symmetric Lorentzian charge current with respect to the opposite magnetic field is generally accepted as the key criterion to identifying its pure spin current origin. However, we herein find that the rectified voltage due to the planar Hall effect can exhibit a similar spurious signal, complicating and even misleading the analysis. The distribution of microwave magnetic field and induction current has a strong influence on the magnetic field symmetry and line shape of the obtained signal. We further demonstrate a geometry where the spin-charge conversion and the rectified voltage can be readily distinguished with a straightforward symmetry analysis.

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)
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 score0.289
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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. B./Physical review. BSame topicQuantum and electron transport phenomenaFrench-language works237,207