Anisotropic Seebeck coefficient of <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Sr</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>RuO</mml:mi><mml:mn>4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math> in the incoherent regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intuitive entropic interpretations of the thermoelectric effect in metals predict an isotropic Seebeck coefficient at high temperatures in the incoherent regime even in anisotropic metals since entropy is not directional. ${\mathrm{Sr}}_{2}{\mathrm{RuO}}_{4}$ is an enigmatic material known for a wellcharacterized anisotropic normal state and unconventional superconductivity. Recent ab initio transport calculations of ${\mathrm{Sr}}_{2}{\mathrm{RuO}}_{4}$ that include the effect of strong electronic correlations predicted an enhanced high-temperature anisotropy of the Seebeck coefficient at temperatures above 300 K, but experimental evidence is missing. From measurements on clean ${\mathrm{Sr}}_{2}{\mathrm{RuO}}_{4}$ single crystals along both crystallographic directions, we find that the Seebeck coefficient becomes increasingly isotropic upon heating towards room temperature as generally expected. Above 300 K, however, $S$ acquires a new anisotropy which rises up to the highest temperatures measured (750 K), in qualitative agreement with calculations. This is a challenge to entropic interpretations and highlights the lack of an intuitive framework to understand the anisotropy of thermopower at high temperatures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.124 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".