MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013703269 · doi:10.1364/josaa.18.001160

Resonant scattering and mode coupling in two-dimensional textured planar waveguides

2001· article· en· W2013703269 on OpenAlexaff
A.R. Cowan, P. Paddon, V. Pacradouni, Jeff F. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America A · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsOpticsPlanarScatteringSpecular reflectionPolarization (electrochemistry)SlabGratingElectromagnetic fieldWavelengthElectric fieldQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A heuristic formalism is developed for efficiently determining the specular reflectivity spectrum of two-dimensionally textured planar waveguides. The formalism is based on a Green's function approach wherein the electric fields are assumed to vary little over the thickness of the textured part of the waveguide. Its accuracy, when the thickness of the textured region is much smaller than the wavelength of relevant radiation, is verified by comparison with a much less efficient, exact finite difference solution of Maxwell's equations. In addition to its numerical efficiency, the formalism provides an intuitive explanation of Fano-like features evident in the specular reflectivity spectrum when the incident radiation is phase matched to excite leaky electromagnetic modes attached to the waveguide. By associating various Fourier components of the scattered field with bare slab modes, the dispersion, unique polarization properties, and lifetimes of these Fano-like features are explained in terms of photonic eigenmodes that reveal the renormalization of the slab modes due to interaction with the two-dimensional grating. An application of the formalism, in the analysis of polarization-insensitive notch filters, is also discussed.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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

Citations34
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Optical Society of America ASame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207