MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013350958 · doi:10.1117/12.2005621

Photonic quasi-crystals in Fourier and Fourier-Bessel space

2013· article· en· W2013350958 on OpenAlexaff
Scott R. Newman, Robert C. Gauthier

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhotonic Crystals and Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFourier transformBessel functionAperiodic graphFourier seriesFourier analysisDiscrete-time Fourier transformHomogeneous spaceDiscrete Fourier seriesRotation (mathematics)PhysicsGeometryOpticsMathematical analysisMathematicsFractional Fourier transform

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photonic crystals that are aperiodic or quasi-crystalline in nature have been the focus of research due to their complex spatial distributions, resulting in high order rotational symmetries. Recently we proposed aperiodic patterns that were rotationally symmetric while being random in the radial direction. The structures are designed by segmenting the circular design space, randomly populating one segment, and repeating that segment about a center of rotation. Studying the symmetries and geometrical attributes of aperiodic structures is typically performed in reciprocal Fourier space by examining the distribution of the Fourier coefficients. This allows the translational symmetry to be directly extracted and the rotational nature to be interpreted. Instead we propose comparing the typical Fourier analysis with the use of a Fourier-Bessel space. The Fourier-Bessel approach expands the dielectric layout in cylindrical coordinates using exponential and Bessel functions as the angular and radial basis functions. The coefficients obtained in this fashion directly provide the rotational symmetries that are present. This work will examine both the Fourier and Fourier-Bessel distributions of the proposed structures as well as other quasi-crystals in order to explore the strengths and weaknesses of both techniques.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicPhotonic Crystals and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207