Fabrication of Hybrid Microoptics Using UV Imprinting Process with Shrinkage Compensation Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With increasing demand for compact aspherical optics in the field of imaging and optical data storage, fabrication technology for low cost micro aspherical optics has become a research priority. There are various types of micro aspherical optics, such as injection molded lens, glass molded lens, glass and hybrid lens. Among these types of lens, the hybrid is regarded as one of the most suitable because it combines good optical properties with low cost. The hybrid lens is fabricated by fabricating an aspherical layer on a spherical glass lens. To fabricate the hybrid lens at low cost, a UV imprinting process is preferred for its simplicity. However, in the conventional UV imprinting process volumetric shrinkage of the photopolymer causes various problems such as surface wrinkling and asymmetric local shrinkage. To overcome such limitations of the UV imprinting process, a shrinkage compensation method using an iris diaphragm to control the direction of polymerization is proposed and analyzed experimentally. To evaluate the proposed UV imprinting process, a hybrid lens was designed and fabricated, and its geometrical property was measured and compared with the design value.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".