MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optical Saturation Produces Spurious Evidence for Photoinduced Superconductivity in<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">K</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>

2023· article· lv· W4362588875 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Steven Dodge, Leya Lopez, Derek G. Sahota

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum and electron transport phenomena
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsSpurious relationshipPhotoconductivitySaturation (graph theory)PhysicsSpectroscopySuperconductivityDistortion (music)Electrical resistivity and conductivityOptical conductivityCondensed matter physicsOpticsComputer scienceOptoelectronicsMathematicsMachine learningQuantum mechanicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss a systematic error in time-resolved optical conductivity measurements that becomes important at high pump intensities. We show that common optical nonlinearities can distort the photoconductivity depth profile, and by extension distort the photoconductivity spectrum. We show evidence that this distortion is present in existing measurements on K_{3}C_{60}, and describe how it may create the appearance of photoinduced superconductivity where none exists. Similar errors may emerge in other pump-probe spectroscopy measurements, and we discuss how to correct for them.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicQuantum and electron transport phenomenaFrench-language works237,207