MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989664255 · doi:10.1364/oe.17.006600

Optical activity in an artificial chiral media: a terahertz time-domain investigation of Karl F Lindman’s 1920 pioneering experiment

2009· article· en· W1989664255 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Y. Elezzabi, Shawn Sederberg

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMolecular spectroscopy and chirality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOptical rotationCircular dichroismPhysicsCircular polarizationOpticsElectric fieldTerahertz radiationScatteringTime domainOptical phenomenaChirality (physics)Electromagnetic radiationChiral symmetryCrystallographyChemistryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chiral media interact preferentially with either left- or right-circularly polarized electromagnetic waves, leading to effects including circular dichroism, optical rotation and circular preferential scattering. In this experiment, we revisit Lindman's famous 1920 experiment linking artificial chiral materials to optical activity and we record the first time-domain measurements of a single-cycle THz pulse transmitted through randomly oriented metallic helices. Time-resolved measurements of co- and cross-polarized components of the transmitted electric field allow the electric field trajectory to be reconstructed and time dynamics of the two circular components to be investigated. For the first time, we show that time dynamics reveal two distinct effects that are separated in time: local preferential circular scattering and collective coupling. These findings are important on furthering our understanding on the analogy between optical activity arising from light interaction with large chiral molecules and that from macroscopic artificial chiral media.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations22
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicMolecular spectroscopy and chiralityFrench-language works237,207