Packaging of photonic components VII: the process for coupling optical fibers to planar waveguides with thermal curing adhesives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our developed thermal curing adhesives were reported having excellent performance in coupling optical fibers to waveguides. The fiber-to-waveguide coupling process based on these adhesives is reported in this paper. The process consisted of three major steps in the process, including loading waveguide dies and fiber arrays onto the sample holders, aligning the fibers to waveguides at a constant temperature to reach minimum loss, bonding the fiber arrays to waveguide dies. The sample holders, which used ceramic spaces to isolate heat and springs to damp stress, were specially designed to keep fiber arrays and waveguide dies at a constant temperature up to 120°C with minimum shift. When the fiber arrays and waveguide dies were equilibrated with the set temperature, a rough alignment was conducted manually, followed by an automatic alignment controlled by a Melles Griot system. Then, the adhesives with proper viscosity and curing rate were applied to the gaps between fiber array and waveguide dies to bond them together. The curing temperature was optimized so that the adhesives could be distributed rapidly and cured at a speed that still allowed a small alignment adjustment during the curing. Such a temperature optimization was achieved by studying the adhesives’ curing kinetics with a DSC.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it