MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968633182 · doi:10.1109/jlt.2013.2263278

Echelle Diffractive Grating Based Wavelength Interrogator for Potential Aerospace Applications

2013· article· en· W1968633182 on OpenAlexaff
Honglei Guo, Gaozhi Xiao, Nezih Mrad, Jianping Yao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lightwave Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Fiber Optic Sensors
Canadian institutionsDepartment of National DefenceInstitute for Microstructural SciencesUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiber Bragg gratingAerospaceStructural health monitoringInterrogationOptical fiberGratingElectronic engineeringFiber optic sensorDiffraction gratingOpticsRepeatabilityMaterials scienceEngineeringElectrical engineeringOptoelectronicsAerospace engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Operational load monitoring and impact damage detection are the two critical aspects of aerospace structural health monitoring (SHM). Fiber Bragg grating (FBG) sensors have demonstrated great potential in both. But the currently available interrogation systems can only handle one of the two types of SHM capabilities offered by FBG sensors. In addition, the practical implementation of FBG sensor systems in aerospace vehicles requires the interrogator to be small size, light weight, and low-power consuming. In this paper, we present an Echelle diffractive grating (EDG) based interrogation system for FBG sensors, which possesses two operation modes, i.e., the sweeping mode for operational load monitoring and the parked mode for impact damage detection. Experimental results show that this interrogator offers better than 1-pm measurement resolution and 10-pm repeatability. In addition, the interrogation system is very compact and weighs less than 60 g (excluding the electronic controller). It also has the potential to achieve a measurement speed of 300 kHz and be powered by a battery.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lightwave TechnologySame topicAdvanced Fiber Optic SensorsFrench-language works237,207