Experimental investigation of the transient dynamics of slow light in ruby
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a pulsed light beam propagates through ruby, it is delayed by a slow-light mechanism. This mechanism has been the subject of debate (Wisniewski-Barker et al 2013 New J. Phys. 15 083020 ; Kozlov et al 2014 New J. Phys. 16 038001 ; Wisniewski-Barker et al 2014 New J. Phys. 16 038002 ). To distinguish between the two main proposed mechanisms, we investigate the trailing edge of a square-wave pulsed laser beam propagating through ruby. Our observation of a pronounced tail on the trailing edge of the transmitted pulse cannot be explained solely by the effects of a time-varying absorber acting upon the incident pulse. Therefore, our observation of the creation of a tail at the trailing edge of the pulse provides evidence for a complicated model of slow light in ruby that requires more than pulse reshaping. The different delays of individual Fourier components of the pulse signal explain the pulse distortion that occurs upon transmission through the ruby and must be accounted for by any model that attempts to describe the effects of slow light in ruby.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".