<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> and the elastocaloric effect 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> under <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>〈</mml:mo> <mml:mn>110</mml:mn> <mml:mo>〉</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> uniaxial stress: No indications of transition splitting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is considerable evidence that the superconductivity of Sr 2 RuO 4 has two components. Among this evidence is a jump in the shear elastic modulus c 66 at the critical temperature T c , observed in ultrasound measurements. Such a jump is forbidden for homogeneous single-component order parameters, and it implies that T c should develop as a cusp under the application of shear strain with 〈 110 〉 principal axes. This shear strain should split the onset temperatures of the two components, if they coexist, or select one component if they do not. Here, we report measurements of T c and the elastocaloric effect of Sr 2 RuO 4 under uniaxial stress applied along the [110] lattice direction. Within experimental resolution, we resolve neither a cusp in the stress dependence of T c , nor any second transition in the elastocaloric effect data. We show that reconciling these null results with the observed jumps in c 66 requires extraordinarily fine tuning to a triple point of the Ginzburg-Landau parameter space. In addition, our results are inconsistent with homogeneous time-reversal symmetry breaking at a temperature T 2 ≤ T c as identified in muon spin relaxation experiments. Published by the American Physical Society 2024
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.424 | 0.311 |
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".