MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1160197769 · doi:10.1117/12.2187117

Design of optical channel waveguides in SiO<sub>2</sub>by ion implantation

2015· article· en· W1160197769 on OpenAlexaff
H. De los Reyes, E. Medina, D. Salazar, R. Rangel-Rojo, G. V. Vázquez, A. Oliver, Sven Achenbach, M. Börner, H. Márquez

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsMaterials scienceRefractive indexIon implantationBeam propagation methodOpticsBend radiusRefractive index profileBendingWavelengthChannel (broadcasting)FluenceRADIUSIonFocused ion beamOptoelectronicsIon beamBeam (structure)Computer scienceTelecommunicationsPhysicsLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Design of straight and S-bend optical channel waveguides based on silver ion implantation in SiO2 substrates is presented. 3D Beam Propagation Method (BPM) calculations are used for the design of the waveguides based on step index profiles produced from a sequential multiple ion implantation process. An analysis of modal optical confinement was done by means of the Effective Index Method (EIM) for selecting the right dimensions of the channel waveguides. Core index values between 1.4623-1.4662 are obtained, depending on the fluence, are considered. Depth and width for the waveguides were chosen to provide single mode operation. Bending losses are determined as function of bending radius, refractive index change (Δn), and wavelength.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207