Superconducting monolayer cuprate with a single CuO2 plane
1–10 of 20 posts
Re: Superconducting monolayer cuprate with a single CuO2 plane
#2That was fun but this is gun?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-026-03375-4
The two teams could "synergize" their tacit knowledge, overcome "involution"?
Without open peer review like in the old days it's hard, even with frontier models, for nonexperts to know if the above breakthrough was (unfairly?) relegated or how significant TFA is truly
Re: Superconducting monolayer cuprate with a single CuO2 plane
#3That was fun but this is gun? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-026-03375-4 The two teams could "synergize" their tacit knowledge, overcome "involution"? Without open peer review like in the old days it's hard, even with frontier models, for nonexperts to know if the above breakthrough was (unfairly?) relegated or how significant TFA is truly
[dead]
Re: Superconducting monolayer cuprate with a single CuO2 plane
#4The writing here seems very odd. It reads like a product announcement or blog page, not an article in Nature. I'm left questioning its validity.
Re: Superconducting monolayer cuprate with a single CuO2 plane
#5The writing here seems very odd. It reads like a product announcement or blog page, not an article in Nature. I'm left questioning its validity.
Hmm. I didn’t get that impression from a quick skim. Just curious: what makes you think that?
Re: Superconducting monolayer cuprate with a single CuO2 plane
#6The writing here seems very odd. It reads like a product announcement or blog page, not an article in Nature. I'm left questioning its validity.
Hmm. I didn’t get that impression from a quick skim. Just curious: what makes you think that?
I would guess it's the 'vast' and the 'unprecedented' for example.
Re: Superconducting monolayer cuprate with a single CuO2 plane
#7The writing here seems very odd. It reads like a product announcement or blog page, not an article in Nature. I'm left questioning its validity.
I noticed that too.The writing style itself seems a bit strange. I'm not deep into superconductors, so I can't judge the science itself but I have doubts about how much trust this article can give.
Re: Superconducting monolayer cuprate with a single CuO2 plane
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm. I didn’t get that impression from a quick skim. Just curious: what makes you think that?
I would guess it's the 'vast' and the 'unprecedented' for example.
Maybe just a combination of academic jargon and English not being the authors first language? At this point I would also not be surprised if language models are used for writing abstracts.
Re: Superconducting monolayer cuprate with a single CuO2 plane
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would guess it's the 'vast' and the 'unprecedented' for example.
Maybe just a combination of academic jargon and English not being the authors first language? At this point I would also not be surprised if language models are used for writing abstracts.
This is Nature. If they stopped doing editorial work regarding writing style, and use LLMs to generate abstracts, it seems they have outlived their usefulness.
Re: Superconducting monolayer cuprate with a single CuO2 plane
#10 > "a single layer of Bi2Sr2CuO6+δ (Bi-2201)"