MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985508001 · doi:10.1364/ol.35.002526

Refractive index engineering with subwavelength gratings for efficient microphotonic couplers and planar waveguide multiplexers

2010· article· en· W1985508001 on OpenAlexaff
Pavel Cheben, Przemek J. Bock, Jens H. Schmid, J. Lapointe, Siegfried Janz, Dan‐Xia Xu, A. Densmore, A. Delâge, B. Lamontagne, Trevor J. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Letters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of OttawaInstitute for Microstructural Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpticsMultiplexerCladding (metalworking)PlanarWaveguideGratingMaterials scienceRefractive indexDiffraction gratingOptoelectronicsPhotonic integrated circuitNanoimprint lithographyPhotonicsMultiplexingPhysicsFabricationTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use subwavelength gratings (SWGs) to engineer the refractive index in microphotonic waveguides, including practical components such as input couplers and multiplexer circuits. This technique allows for direct control of the mode confinement by changing the refractive index of a waveguide core over a range as broad as 1.6-3.5 by lithographic patterning. We demonstrate two experimental examples of refractive index engineering, namely, a microphotonic fiber-chip coupler with a coupling loss as small as -0.9dB and minimal wavelength dependence and a planar waveguide multiplexer with SWG nanostructure, which acts as a slab waveguide for light diffracted by the grating, while at the same time acting as a lateral cladding for the strip waveguide. This yields an operation bandwidth of 170nm for a device size of only approximately 160microm x100microm.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.000
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.178 · 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
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

Citations295
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics LettersSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207