MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413929623 · doi:10.1103/7bbg-m38l

Charge gap and charge redistribution among copper and oxygen orbitals in the normal state of the Emery model

2025· article· en· W4413929623 on OpenAlexafffund
G. L. Reaney, N. Kowalski, A.–M. S. Tremblay, G. Sordi

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. B./Physical review. B · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsRedistribution (election)Atomic orbitalCharge (physics)CopperOxygenPartial chargeCharge densityAtomic physicsMaterials sciencePhysicsChemical physicsCondensed matter physicsChemistryQuantum mechanicsPolitical scienceElectronMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unraveling the behavior of the electrons in the copper-oxygen planes of cuprate superconductors remains a challenge. Here we examine the electronic charge redistribution among planar copper and oxygen orbitals and the charge gap using the Emery model in the normal state, solved with cellular dynamical mean-field theory at finite temperature. We quantify the charge redistribution as a function of the onsite Coulomb repulsion on the copper orbitals, the bare copper-oxygen energy difference, and the hole or electron doping. We find that the position relative to the metal to insulator boundary of the Zaanen-Sawatzky-Allen diagram determines the charge redistribution among copper and oxygen orbitals. For a fixed bare Cu-O energy difference, an increase in the Cu electron repulsion leads to a transfer of the electronic charge from Cu to O orbitals. For a fixed charge gap size of the undoped state, as the system evolves from a charge-transfer to a Mott-Hubbard regime, the electronic charge is transferred from Cu to O orbitals. Our findings posit the Coulomb repulsion and the bare charge-transfer energy as key drivers of the microscopic process of charge redistribution in the CuO 2 plane. They quantify the anticorrelation between the charge gap size and oxygen hole content. They show that for fixed band-structure parameters, the charge gap and the charge redistribution between Cu and O orbitals provide a way to understand observed trends in cuprates.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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