MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973951400 · doi:10.1117/12.809081

Nonlinear forms of laser beam propagation in a photopolymerizable medium

2009· article· en· W1973951400 on OpenAlexafffund
Ana B. Villafranca, Kalaichelvi Saravanamuttu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhotorefractive and Nonlinear Optics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsFilamentationSelf-focusingOpticsDiffractionBeam (structure)Refractive indexLaserSelf-phase modulationMaterials scienceNonlinear opticsWaveguideExcitationPhysicsLaser beams

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detailed studies of the dynamics of a continuous wave, visible laser beam propagating in a photopolymerizable organosiloxane are presented. Experiments carried out at intensities ranging across ten orders of magnitude (3.2 x 10<sup>-5</sup> Wcm<sup>-2</sup> to 12732 Wcm<sup>-2</sup>) revealed three types of nonlinear behaviour. In the low-intensity regime, the beam self-trapped and exhibited complex oscillatory behaviour, which signified the excitation of high-order modes in its self-inscribed waveguide during self-trapping. This is consistent with previous theoretical predictions of self-trapping in 1-photon systems including photopolymers. In the mid-intensity regime, the beam underwent spatial self-phase modulation, which elicited spatial diffraction rings. While this phenomenon has been observed in Kerr, liquid crystals and absorptive materials, it has until now been neither theoretically nor experimentally observed in photopolymers. Rapid and large refractive index changes induced in the high-intensity regime caused filamentation of the beam. These studies provide a comprehensive overview of nonlinear light propagation in photopolymers.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicPhotorefractive and Nonlinear OpticsFrench-language works237,207