lfoppiano / supermat Goto Github PK
View Code? Open in Web Editor NEWSuperconductors material dataset
License: Apache License 2.0
Superconductors material dataset
License: Apache License 2.0
In this example: Growth and superconducting transition of Pr 1−x Ca x Ba 2 Cu 3 O 7−δ (x ≈0.5) epitaxial thin films
do you agree on annotating: Growth and superconducting transition of <material>Pr 1−x Ca x Ba 2 Cu 3 O 7−δ (x ≈0.5) epitaxial thin films</material>
or just the material formula, as epitaxial does not mean anything important?
Growth and superconducting transition of <material>Pr 1−x Ca x Ba 2 Cu 3 O 7−δ (x ≈0.5)</material> epitaxial thin films
CF: SST0180041-CC.superconductors.tei.xml
Should the annotation <class>
be linkable from <tcValue>
?
See discussion on mattermost: https://gitlab.nims.go.jp:8180/nfm/pl/onzixnwfy7npfcuoepubsr6wny
Counter-examples (annotations done in the past)
I've computed this, by aggregating measurement methods value together. The principle is very simple, I search for values contained in "names" and aggregate them:
"specific heat": {
"names": ["heat", "therm"]
},
"magnetic susceptibility": {
"names": ["susceptibilit"]
},
"resistivity": {
"names": ["resistivit", "resistance", "electrical"]
},
"magnetisation": {
"names": ["magneti"]
},
"empirical calculation": {
"names": ["calcula", "predict", "theor"]
}
Could you please confirm that "magnetisation" and "magnetic susceptibility" two different measurement methods? I have a doubt and is not mentioned in the guidelines (http://falcon.nims.go.jp/superconductors-documentation/guidelines.html#measurement-methods
Here is what I obtain
Do you have any comment on that? Does it looks reasonable?
Currently, we have the following inconsistencies (I analysed batch 1 (before the latest correction, which is still ongoing), 2, 3 and 4):
Perhaps this question is a bit silly... I have a small doubt:
Example 1: [...] the magnesium diboride ( MgB 2 ) the archetype [...]
Example 2: [...] nickel borocarbide YNi 2 B 2 C [...]
We decided not to annotate magnesium diboride
as material, as the formula takes priority. Should I annotate diboride as class? In the second case, can we apply the same rule ("borocarbide" as class) or we do not annotate at all?
[...]Though the superconducting phase of the type-II Dirac semimetal PdTe2 was shown to be conventional in nature,[...]
We annotate type-II Dirac semimetal
as
Should we:
<class>
)<material>
<sample>
type-II Dirac semimetal PdTe2
as <sample>
?
I think in the sentence variation of Tc
, only Tc
should be annotated because variation
does not provide any useful information (is increasing, is decreasing?)
I have some questions regarding one paper which uses strange reference for structure
These M 5 X 3 phases are found crystallized in several different unique crystal systems, namely; hexagonal Mn 5 Si 3 -type , tetragonal Cr 5 B 3 and W 5 Si 3 -type , and orthorhombic Nb 5 As 3 and Y 5 Bi 3 -type structures. Often, one compound might crystallize into two different structures, one as a high temperature phase and the other as a low temperature phase. For example, this is seen in both Ta 5 Ge 3 and Nb 5 Si 3 compounds. Chemical/interstitial doping was also found to be able to change the crystal structures upon doping, in turn, tuning the physical properties of the host binaries by the nature and amount of interstitial atoms that could be introduced.
In this sentence there are some material that are cited as type structure
: exagonal Mn 5 Si 3 -type , tetragonal Cr 5 B 3 and W 5 Si 3 -type , and orthorhombic Nb 5 As 3 and Y 5 Bi 3 -type structures.
Later in the paper the author writes Superconductivity has been reported firstly in Zr 5 Sb 3 with T c ∼2.3 K , and later in the Ru-doped Zr 5 Sb 3 and Hf 5 Sb 3 (with structure changing from Mn 5 Si 3 type to W 5 Si 3 type upon doping).
Ru-doped Zr 5 Sb 3
has the same Tc as the Zr 5 Sb 3
(non-doped)?with structure changing from Mn 5 Si 3 type to W 5 Si 3 type upon doping
I wonder if these are just references to the structure types and should not be annotated.paper: Li_2018_Supercond._Sci._Technol._31_085001
When a material is presented just the doping ratio with one variable and several values, we annotate all as a single annotation, e.g x = 0.01, 0.2 and so on and we link it to each of the tc value that are referenced:
Example: The Tc for x = 1,2,3,4 is 3K, 4K, 5K and 6K respectively
Annotate x = 1,2,3,4 as one annotation and each tc separately and link them
To be added in the guidelines
Example 1: <me_method>Magnetic field penetration depth</me_method> λ and high-pressure studies traditionally play an important role in superconductivity.
Example 2: we performed <me_method>DC-magnetization measurements</me_method>
Are these the measurement method that we have seen as "magnetic susceptibility"?
CF: L093157004-CC.superconductors
As discussed in the meeting, to be sure I don't forget, SQUID Magnetometer is not a measurement method but an equipment, therefore should not be annotated as <me_method>
.
Here two examples from the same paragraph:
The substitution of Pr in R-123 (R = rare earth) and [...]
The Pr-substituted R-123 compounds also [...]
right now R-123
is annotated as class.
I'm wondering if instead we should annotate substitution of Pr in R-123
as a material?
What do you think?
CF: SSC1280097-CC.superconductors.tei.xml.tsv
here a sentence: Since the starting model was assumed to be an R-123 tetragonal structure, the LaPrCaBCO (x = 0.1 -0.5) were normalized to La-123 .
Would be correct to have R-123 as class and La-123 as material?
R-123 represent the system and La is the replacement for it? Like we could have Cu-123?
CFR: SSC1280097-CC.superconductors.tei.xml
The question is originated by the fact that certain measurement method can result in different tcValue.
However:
The decision, for the time being is to not link me_method to tcValue
as previously discussed it seems NMR is not a measurement method, but it has been annotated as such. j
what is the final decision?
I have some doubt about this sentence:
The rise of T c without AF fluctuations was observed only for x = 0.14 (see the dashed arrow in Fig. 4), because AF fluctuations remain in a lower doping range than x = 0.14 and unfortunately x = 0.14 is nearly the highest level of F doping.
we have discussed it but I forgot what was told. Could someone explain below? What should be annotated?
Can someone advice?
The and annotations are overlapping:
Here some point / discussions:
supercon/L087187001-CC.superconductors.tei.xml.tsv
:metallic pyrochlore oxide
is it a class or a material?You have 1)
We make the first report that a metallic pyrochlore oxide Cd 2 Re 2 O 7
and 2)
A large number of compounds are classified in the family of pyrochlore oxides
which looks like material the first and class the second
In case we have time to discuss tomorrow, let me put a question. In the above screenshot, it is saying that Pr0.5Ca0.5Ba2Cu3O7-d thin films grown on STO substrate has tc0 of 35.6 K. Pr0.5Ca0.5Ba2Cu3O7-d thin films grown on YSZ substrate has tc0 of 37 K. It might be difficult for machine now to link it properly, I guess.
23:25Here is another similar expression
At most we can do right now is, like here, link Pr0.5Ca0.5Ba2Cu3O7-d with tcvalues, ignoring substrates. But if we could involve the additional conditions such as "grown on STO" in future, it would be better.
Maybe this can be verified in the coming meeting, but here let me note. It is about the definition of class and material. To me, it sound nice that we call class when it contains several materials, and individual material composition (combination of atoms) is difficult to specify.
For instance, "Fe-based 122" is a class, since we cannot immediately specify what we have other than Fe atom
We discussed and agreed that
material_formula (abbreviation)
goes in a single<material>
annotation. What about this case?
Should both be considered materials? class/materials?
In summary, we have presented the unique characteristics of superconductivity and its relation to antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations in the heavy- fermion superconductor CeIrIn 5 through 115 In-NQR measurements under pressure.
need confirmation that is not a measurement method
What do you think?
CF: L094037007-CC.superconductors
What should we do for expressions like high-tc cuprate
?
I'd say it's a <class>
, should we annotate also high-tc
? The class is cuprate
in fact... what's the difference between high-tc cuprate
and cuprate
?
The sample under study is plated with a conventional low T c superconductor, in this case an Al film.
Al film is a substrate, right?
therefore we should not annotate, according to https://gitlab.nims.go.jp/lfoppiano/superconductors-documentation/issues/12#note_34835 and guidelines:
If the substrate is adjacent to the material (e.g. blablabla/StRO3),
the whole sequence should be annotated as <material> but if the substrate
is apart from the material name should be ignored.
CRF: supercon/APL0774202-CC.superconductors.tei.xml.tsv
The starting materials, Co 3 O 4 , SrCO 3 , Y 2 O 3 , CaCO 3 and CuO, were mixed to nominal ratios and calcined at 975 o C and 1000 o C with an intermediate [..]
What did we said about the materials that are used for composing the output material?
In this case, as the substrate, we should ignore them unless there is a specific reference to Tc or tcValue. What do you think?
Alternative is that we keep them annotated and we figure them out afterwards
CF: SSC1270493-CC.superconductors.tei.xml.tsv
We forgot the critical field (which is yet another property) to be added in the data model
Hi there,
I'd like to use this task as part of an evaluation suite for a chemistry-specific natural language model. Other than the SuperMat-1.0.csv
file in data/csv
I'm not seeing where the annotations are being stored. In the paper you refer to an annotated structure within the xml files, however I'm not seeing any data within the text nodes for any of the xml files you've included in the repo. Am I missing or misunderstanding something?
I think expressions like ambient pressure, room temperature should be considered as pressure and temperature (respectively).
For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambient_pressure, for my understanding ambien pressure should be 1 atm (measured at sea level).
Room temperature, for me is around 20C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_temperature)
What do you think?
Increasing research interest has emerged lately on the binary compound M 5 X 3 (M=alkaline earth or transition metal, and X=main group elements including Al, Si and As families), which includes superconductivity , ferro/antiferromagnetism , host-interstitial chemistry , and high temperature structural applications .
M 5 X 3
looks like a material to me, could you please confirm it's a class?
CF: Li_2018_Supercond._Sci._Technol._31_085001.superconductors.tei.xml
I found this reference Andreev critical temperature
with TAc
. Does this classify as critical temperature?
Example:
For this reason, in all the contacts, we therefore carefully studied the temperature dependence of the conductance in order to determine the critical temperature of the junction, i.e. the 'Andreev critical temperature', T A c . In an overall of 35 different contacts, T A c was found to be 11.3 ± 0.1 K, in best agreement with the bulk T c 's of the samples and in contrast with a previous report .
L093156802-CC.superconductors
I just found "iodometric double titration" as <me_method>. is it correct?
CFR: SSC1280097-CC.superconductors.tei.xml
Just a clarification.
The term "transition temperature" looks, to me, very generic. Is there a general definition or it's just a temperature where anything happens?
For example in this sentence TLO and TLT are not Tc, right?
[...] two structural phase transition temperatures are determined as T LO =90 K and T LT =65 K in La 1.84 Y 0.04 Sr 0.12 CuO 4. T LO is the structural phase transition temperature to the low-temperature orthorhombic (OLT) phase, and T LT is that to the low-temperature tetragonal (TLT) phase. [...]
There is one sentence I want to amend in the guidelines:
any pressure that is not “critical” or linkable to a critical temperature, should be ignored ...
I want to change it to
any pressure that is not “critical” should be ignored
so that any pressure that is critical, although not linkable should be therefore annotated
The reason is to increase the amount of annotations in output which are still relevant, although not linked with our current rules.
CF: supercon/L089157004-CC.superconductors.tei.xml.tsv
In one of the previous meetings, there was a question raised from Terashima-san, about the resistivity
which is always annotated as me_method
.
Here some examples:
Although the <me_method>resistivity</me_method> measurements reported in Ref. were made with contact [...]
<p>Temperature-dependent <me_method>resistivity</me_method> of <material>polycrystalline WB 4.2</material> measured from 300 to 1.7 K [...]
On cooling, we see signatures of superconductivity: a sharp drop of the <me_method>resistivity</me_method> to zero and a decrease [...]
We agreed to keep annotating it but the rules here are a bit weak.
I've been thinking a bit more
resistivity
only when the paper is talking about the method of measuring the Tc
Any though?
Tc expressions -> basic rules
:
relative information attached to critical temperature should be annotated, for example: increasing Tc, raising Tc, etc.. only when the value they refer to is absolute.
After discussion the statement only when the value they refer to is absolute.
is not necessary for these reasons:
See change: 9194dbf7d7f4ee5ca09259aa1659f3cdadbdef05
Example: [..]on all the three members of the β-pyrochlore oxide superconductors.
β-pyrochlore oxide
was annotated as
See another sentence:
A new family of transition metal oxide superconductors AOs 2 O 6 (A = Cs, Rb, K) called β-pyrochlore oxides was found recently [1-4].
According to the new rules, we should annotate oxide
as class but might be too generic, so β-pyrochlore oxide
is a class or material?
CF: L095167004-CC.superconductors.tei.xml.tsv
Question from @a017731
I have a question I will leave it here later
Some Tc Values were missed.
However please note that it says 3.3K for Cs, 6.3K For Rb and 9.6 K for K
That means is 3.3 K for CsO2O6
Now my question is, do we tag cs rb and K as materials and link to it
or we link to AOs2O6 (A= Cs, Rb, K)?
Reference supercon-batch-1/L095167004-CC.superconductors.tei.xml.tsv
Reviewing the last data, I found two inconsistencies between material and class:
La-214
Examples:
Therefore, they have proposed that the dynamical stripe correlations, observed in a wide range of hole concentration in the <class>La-214</class> superconductors, are pinned by the TLT structure, leading to the appearance of the static stripe order and [...]
There could be seen Bragg peaks of the <class>La-214</class> phase and no impurities such as <material>La 1+x Ba 2−x Cu 3 O 7−δ</material> [...]
The origin of the sign reversals in S ab and R H is not clarified, but it is considered that these behaviors are characteristic of the 1/8 anomaly in a series of <class>La-214</class> systems.
CFR: P064144524-CC.superconductors.tei.xml
Ru-2122
Examples:
<p>In the <material>Ru-2122</material> system, the W-FM state, as well as irreversibility phenomena
The qualitative model of the magnetic structure in the <material>Ru-2122</material> system is discussed.
There is no evidence for super-cell peaks in the <material>Ru-2122</material> samples.</p>
The exact nature of the local structural distortions causing DM exchange coupling in <material>Ru-2122</material> (see above) is not presently known.
CFR: P066024503-CC.superconductors.tei.xml
Since STM is a local probe, there is a possibility that it does not reflect the
bulk T c of the sample and therefore it is important to consider the energy gap magnitude.
Both refs. and present energy gaps in the range 35-40 meV in addition to the pseudogap behavior.
This gap magnitude is consistent with optimally doped or slightly overdoped samples and
thus the doping level at the junction is not well established. In a more recent study, SIS
break junctions of underdoped and overdoped Bi-2212 with T c = 82 K were fabricated using an
STM by M. Oda et al. .
Both sets of data exhibited a pseudogap above T c ; however, the overdoped tunneling conductance
showed a smaller gap which fills in at a much lower temperature than underdoped and thus T * is
closer to T c . Taken together the tunneling studies have established that the pseudogap persists
with overdoping down to T c = 82 K , but is absent when T c = 56 K .
A natural question might be whether there is any change in the pairing symmetry associated with
the loss of a pseudogap. One may assume that increasing hole doping makes the Bi-2212 normal-state
more Fermi-liquid-like, leading possibly to an s-wave BCS superconductor. There are ARPES observations
that suggest s-wave BCS behavior in the heavily overdoped phase . However, the tunneling subgap
conductance shapes at low temperatures in figs. 1(a) and (b) are not consistent with the s-wave
BCS theory prediction which is supposed to be flat near zero bias. Here what we observed is that
the d-wave-like subgap structure persists at the T c = 56 K
There is 82k and 56k, which are noted as Tc =
but... are them critical temperatures?
CF: supercon/EPL0580589-CC.superconductors.tei.xml.tsv
This is related to #28.
Given the following example:
We report transverse field and zero field muon spin rotation studies of the superconducting rhenium oxide pyrochlore, Cd2Re2O7.
What part of the string rhenium oxide pyrochlore
should I annotate as class?
rhenium oxide pyrochlore
oxide pyrochlore
pyrochlore
pyrochlore
and oxide
rhenium oxide
or something else?
CRF: L089147002-CC.superconductors.tei.xml.tsv
Tc expressions are currently annotated without any modifier, such as higher
, high
etc..
Point was made about the importance of the information related to the critical temperature, in particular whether is a relative value (higher than), an absolute value (higher) and so on.
In the guidelines we have stated that Modifiers can be (http://falcon.nims.go.jp/superconductors-documentation/guidelines.html#material-name):
Can we consider also the atomic structure a modifier, for example:
These M 5 X 3 phases are found crystallized in several different unique crystal systems, namely; hexagonal Mn 5 Si 3 -type , tetragonal Cr 5 B 3 and W 5 Si 3 -type , and orthorhombic Nb 5 As 3 and Y 5 Bi 3 -type structures. Often, one compound might crystallize into two different structures, one as a high temperature phase and the other as a low temperature phase.
we have tetragonal
, orthorhombic
etc...
What do you think?
CFR: supercon/Li_2018_Supercond._Sci._Technol._31_085001.superconductors.tei.xml.tsv
Question from @a018044:
How many modifiers should be annotated as material?
Crystal to be annotated or not?
Comment from @a017731
I dont think so. Well maybe it can be equivalement of 'bulk', but for me is ambiguous if he is saying its a single or poly crystal
probably related to #26
Here an example:
Superconducting transitions measured by ac susceptibility and dc resistance.
what should be annotated as <me_method>?
Superconducting transitions measured by <me_method>ac susceptibility</me_method> and dc <me_method>resistance</me_method>
.
I'm wondering whether ac
and dc
are also to be included in the annotation
Ref: SSC1310125-CC.superconductors.tei.xml.tsv
the first annotation it has been annotated whole electron-doped...blablabla...
According to https://gitlab.nims.go.jp/a017873/superconductors-documentation/issues/2 modifiers that "define a sub-class" should not be annotated.
@a016853 mentioned: I suppose there are two mechanisms, electron-doped and hole-doped. In case we need to distinguish them we have to annotate them. For now, I'm not sure which is better.
Zero-field measurements indicate no static magnetic fields developing below the transition temperature.
Annotate or not?
CFR: L089147002-CC.superconductors.tei.xml.tsv
I'm wondering what "nematic superconductivity" means...
here what I found about nematic: Whose molecules align in loose parallel lines.
but, in practice, what does that means? is that information useful?
Here an example:
Another example, in this sentence `a) and (b), the critical transition temperature of 150 nm thick Ba122 :Co films grown on MgO substrates were T onset c = 20 K.
I think material should be annotated the whole descriptive name: 150 nm thick Ba122 :Co films grown on MgO substrates
any idea?
A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
A PHP framework for web artisans
Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉
JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.
We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.
Alibaba Open Source for everyone
Data-Driven Documents codes.
China tencent open source team.