Paper detail

On the quantitative determination of hole-concentration in high-temperature cuprate superconductors

We compared four hole-scales that have been used to determine the hole-concentration in high-temperature cuprate superconductors. We show that the hole-scale, $P_{pl}$-scale, based on the thermoelectric power [T. Honma $et$ $al$., Phys. Rev. B70, (2004) 214517.] is quantitatively consistent with spectroscopic probes for many different cuprate materials, while the other hole-scales, based on a well-known dome-shaped $T_c$-curve [M. R. Presland $et$ $al$., Physica C176, 95 (1991)], the $c$-axis lattice parameter [R. Liang $et$ $al$., Phys. Rev. B73, (2006) 180505(R).], and Hall coefficient [Y. Ando $et$ $al$., Phys. Rev. B61, (2000) 14956(R).], are not. We show that the quantitatively different hole-scales resulted in opposite conclusion of the same experimental observations. It can also lead to different interpretations of the electronic phase diagram when comparing different physical properties in different high-$T_c$ systems. We suggest that the $P_{pl}$-scale is the correct universal scale that works for all high-$T_c$ cuprates and it should be used for all quantitative doping dependence studies of cuprates.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.