MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403243053 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.110.144508

Absence of Fermi surface reconstruction in pressure-driven overdoped YBCO

2024· article· en· W4403243053 on OpenAlexaff
S. W. Tozer, William A. Coniglio, Tobias Förster, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, Ruixing Liang, Erik Kampert, Audrey Grockowiak

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. B./Physical review. B · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersState of FloridaBasic Energy SciencesDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftU.S. Department of EnergyNational Nuclear Security AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCondensed matter physicsFermi surfaceMaterials scienceFermi Gamma-ray Space TelescopeSurface (topology)PhysicsSuperconductivityGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolution of the critical superconducting temperature and field, quantum oscillation frequencies, and effective mass ${m}^{*}$ in underdoped ${\mathrm{YBa}}_{2}{\mathrm{Cu}}_{3}{\mathrm{O}}_{7\ensuremath{-}\ensuremath{\delta}}$ (YBCO) crystals ($p=0.11$, with $p$ the hole concentration per Cu atom) points to a partial suppression of the charge orders with increasing pressure up to 7 GPa, mimicking doping. Application of pressures up to 25 GPa pushes the sample to the overdoped side of the superconducting dome. In contrast to other cuprates, or to doping studies on YBCO, the frequencies of the quantum oscillations measured in that pressure range do not support the picture of a Fermi-surface reconstruction in the overdoped regime, but possibly point to the existence of a new charge order.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. B./Physical review. B→Same topicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism→French-language works237,207→