Figure 1

$T_c$ versus doping phase diagram (schematic) for PCCO. Dashed line indicates optimal cerium doping $(x\simeq 0.15)$. The star on the diagram indicates the Ce doping presented in this paper. Electron carrier concentration increases to the right. Increasing oxygen concentration decreases the electron carrier concentration and is represented by moving to the left. Upon cerium doping, the material becomes more metallic and the residual resistivity decreases as one moves to the right in the diagram.Reuse & Permissions

Figure 2

ab-plane resistivity versus temperature for $x=0.17$ cerium-doped PCCO films. Symbols are data taken in zero applied magnetic field. Dashed lines are taken in $10\mathrm{T}$ field ($H\parallel c$ axis) and coincide with $H=0\mathrm{T}$ above $T_c$. Scales for (a) and (c) are the same, as well as for (b) and (d). (a) Films with different oxygen content. The arrow indicates the order of increasing oxygen, and the corresponding post-deposition annealing pressures are: $1\times {10}^{-4}$ (◻), $1\times {10}^{-3}$ (▵), and $2.3\times {10}^{-1}\text{Torr}$ (◇). (b) Full temperature scale for the same oxygenated films presented in (a). (c) A single, optimally annealed, film subjected to increasing irradiation doses. The arrow indicates the order of increasing irradiation corresponding to doses 0 (◻), 1 (엯), 2.5 (▵), 8 (▿), and 32 (◇) $\times {10}^{15}\text{ions}∕{\mathrm{cm}}^2$. (d) Full temperature scale for the irradiated film presented in (c).Reuse & Permissions

Figure 3

Hall coefficient $\left(R_H\right)$ versus temperature for the same films in Fig. 2. Scales for both plots are identical. Although this material is classified as $n$ doped, $R_H$ is positive on the overdoped side of the doping phase diagram. (Ref. 17). (a) Films with different oxygen content (arrow indicates order of increasing oxygen). The data labeled $x=0.16$ (●) is from an optimally annealed $x=0.16$ cerium-doped thin film. (b) Single (optimally annealed) film subjected to increasing irradiation doses (arrow indicates order of increasing irradiation dose).Reuse & Permissions

Figure 4

(a) Plot of ${\rho }_0$ versus $R_H$ at $T=2.5\mathrm{K}$ for optimally annealed cerium-doped samples. Cerium concentrations are labeled next to each data point. (b) Carrier concentration correction factor $[\frac{{\rho }_0\left(x\right)}{{\rho }_0\left(0.17\right)}]$ versus change in $R_H$ at $T=2.5\mathrm{K}$ for optimally annealed cerium-doped samples. (c) $\Delta T_c$ versus $\Delta {\rho }_0$ for the irradiated sample. All of the dashed lines are fits to the data.Reuse & Permissions

Figure 5

Change in $T_c$ versus change in $R_H$ at $T=2.5\mathrm{K}$. Doping contributions to the change in $T_c$, $\Delta T_c\left(R_H\right)$, of the $x=0.17$ oxygenated samples after the analysis described in the text (▴). Optimally annealed cerium-doped samples (◻). Inset shows the raw data from the oxygenated samples (▿) along with $\Delta T_c\left(R_H\right)$ from the analysis.Reuse & Permissions