MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1582818466 · doi:10.1109/cleopr.1999.817737

Demonstration of the formalistic equivalence of the JME and Poincare sphere techniques for polarization mode dispersion measurement: is there really only one polarimetric PMD measurement method?

2003· article· en· W1582818466 on OpenAlexaff
N. Cyr, A. Girard, G.W. Schino

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsExfo Electro-Optical Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolarimetryRobustness (evolution)Polarization (electrochemistry)WavelengthPoincaré conjectureEquivalence (formal languages)Polarization mode dispersionPhysicsAlgorithmComputer scienceDispersion (optics)MathematicsOpticsMathematical analysisPure mathematicsScattering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have shown the formalistic equivalence between the Jones matrix eigenanalysis (JME) and Poincare sphere methods (which we propose should more logically be renamed as dispersion vector analysis (DVA)), both in the form of their associated equations of motion, but also in their robustness to the finite wavelength steps which are inevitably used in realistic measurements. In particular, for the case of finite wavelength steps, we demonstrate that, when using identical test procedures (the same initial states of polarization (SOPs) and the same polarimetric analysis of the output SOP, as a function of wavelength), the two methods yield identical results. Thus, the JME and DVA methods can be considered as differing only in the details of how the data is treated, but not in their test procedure nor in their susceptibility to error.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207