On Trapped Flux in a Small Crystal of CaKFe$$_4$$As$$_4$$ and Implications for High-Pressure Hydrides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent work (Bud’ko et al. Supercond. Sci. Technol. 37 , 065010 2024), Bud’ko et al. present experimental results for trapped magnetic flux for a tiny sample of a type II superconductor, $$CaKFe_4As_4$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>C</mml:mi> <mml:mi>a</mml:mi> <mml:mi>K</mml:mi> <mml:mi>F</mml:mi> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>e</mml:mi> <mml:mn>4</mml:mn> </mml:msub> <mml:mi>A</mml:mi> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>s</mml:mi> <mml:mn>4</mml:mn> </mml:msub> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> . The paper aims to provide evidence in support of the interpretation that similar measurements performed in samples of hydrogen-rich materials under high pressure by Minkov et al. (Nat. Phys. 19 , 1293 2023) are conclusive evidence (Eremets Nat. Sci. Rev. 11 , nwae047 2024) for superconductivity in hydrides under pressure. Here, we point out that the new evidence presented by Bud’ko et al. (Supercond. Sci. Technol. 37 , 065010 2024) further supports our interpretation (Hirsch and Marsiglio J. Supercond. Nov. Magn. 35 , 3141–3145 2022; Hirsch and Marsiglio Phys. C 620 , 1354500 2024) that the reported measurements of trapped flux on hydrides under pressure (Minkov et al. Nat. Phys. 19 , 1293 2023) are not consistent with what would be expected from a superconducting sample.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".