Direct evidence for the absence of coupling between shear strain and superconductivity in Sr2RuO4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The superconducting symmetry of Sr2RuO4 has been intensely debated for many years. A crucial controversy recently emerged between shear-mode ultrasound experiments, which suggest a two-component order parameter, and some uniaxial pressure experiments that suggest a one-component order parameter. To resolve this controversy, we use a new approach to directly apply three different kinds of shear strain to single crystals of Sr2RuO4 and investigate the coupling to superconductivity. After characterising the strain by optical imaging, we observe variations of the transition temperature Tc smaller than 10 mK%−1 as measured by low-frequency magnetic susceptibility, indicating that shear strain has little to no coupling to superconductivity. Our results are consistent with a one-component order parameter model, but such a model cannot consistently explain other experimental evidence such as time-reversal symmetry breaking, superconducting domains, and horizontal line nodes, thus calling for alternative interpretations. The authors study Sr2RuO4 under shear strain, finding that shear strain has little to no coupling to superconductivity. These results suggest a one-component superconducting order parameter in Sr2RuO4.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".