MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412168651 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2025-0127

Impact of erbium doping on critical current density and constituent phase in BSCCO superconductors

2025· article· en· W4412168651 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Selami AÇIKEL, İshak CUMHUR, Ali Öztürk, M. Başoğlu, İbrahim Düzgün

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsSuperconductivityDopingCondensed matter physicsCurrent (fluid)Critical currentPhase (matter)Engineering physicsThermodynamicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work systematically examines the influence of partial substitution of calcium (Ca) by erbium (Er) on the structural integrity and superconducting performance of Bi2Sr2Ca2Cu3O10+δ (BSCCO) high-temperature superconductors. Samples were synthesized through the conventional solid-state reaction method and characterized via X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, resistivity, and magnetization measurements. Despite the close effective ionic radii of Er and Ca, experimental results revealed that increasing Er content led to a deterioration of the superconducting phase and the emergence of semiconducting characteristics. Quantitative analyses demonstrated a notable reduction in critical current density ( Jc), with undoped BSCCO samples exhibiting approximately 14% higher Jc values under equivalent conditions. These findings suggest that while ionic size considerations may permit Er substitution from a stoichiometric perspective, the structural and superconducting phase stability of the BSCCO matrix is adversely affected by Er incorporation.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physics→Same topicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism→French-language works237,207→