MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982840639 · doi:10.1117/12.667097

Analysis of the Gordon-Haus effect on quasi-soliton systems

2006· article· en· W1982840639 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Felipe Beltrán, Efraín Solarte

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Fiber Laser Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad del ValleMcMaster University
KeywordsSolitonChirpDispersion (optics)Pulse (music)PhysicsAmplifierDissipative solitonNoise (video)OpticsQuantum mechanicsQuantum electrodynamicsTelecommunicationsOptoelectronicsComputer scienceNonlinear systemVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When an input soliton pass through an optical amplifier, the soliton is boosted along together with the noise signal, and a random variation in the arrival time, called the Gordon-Haus effect, is induced. By the use of programmed chirp and a continuous dispersion profile, as envisaged by Kumar and Hasegawa, it is possible to produce a soliton like pulse called the quasi-soliton. This kind of pulse needs less peak power than the soliton and reduces the soliton-soliton interaction while keeps the benefits of optical solitons. Based on the results obtained by Kumar and Lederer for the Gordon-Haus effect on dispersion managed systems, we studied the influence of this effect in the quasi-soliton propagation. We have obtained an analytical solution for the mean square frequency shift. The expression obtained depends on the dispersion map parameters and the amplifier spacing. The results are shown for different values of the initial chirp.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAdvanced Fiber Laser TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207