MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1982111061 · doi:10.1117/12.684497

Optimization of temperature insensitive refractometer

2006· article· en· W1982111061 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoli Dai, Robert B. Walker, Stephen J. Mihailov, Claire L. Callender, Chantal Blanchetière

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsCommunications Research Centre Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefractometerMaterials scienceCladding (metalworking)OpticsRefractive indexFiber Bragg gratingGratingTilt (camera)WaveguideCore (optical fiber)BirefringenceOptoelectronicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experimentally, in the open-top ridge waveguides, the sensitivities of core and cladding resonances to the surrounding medium's refractive index are different while the temperature sensitivities are similar. Based on these characteristics, a temperature insensitive refractometer has been proposed. To increase the sensitivity of these devices, a theoretical model is developed to investigate the performance of some potential waveguide and Bragg grating structures. Relationships between the waveguide core size, refractive index distribution, tilt angle of the Bragg gratings as well as the relative evanescent sensitivity of the core and cladding modes are examined. As a result, we find that sensitivity can be enhanced by decreasing the waveguide core size, making the effective index of the waveguide close to the expected refractive index of the analyte, and incorporating tilt in the Bragg grating structures. Furthermore, the inclusion of tilt also appears to reduce the grating's birefringence for the waveguide structure examined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE→Same topicPhotonic and Optical Devices→French-language works237,207→