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
In that case you can ignore the article, if it is really significant for layman you will see more articles in the coming weeks/months with simpler explanations
The cause of anomalous (>40 K) high superconducting transition temperatures in mixed copper (III) oxides is one of the most, if not the most, intensively studied questions in condensed-matter physics. If the researchers believe their experimental system can answer those questions, "vast" and "unprecedented" would be appropriate.
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.
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.
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
I'm not sure the old days ever had that.