MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013816991 · doi:10.1117/1.jnp.7.074599

Review of recent progress of III-nitride nanowire lasers

2013· article· en· W2013816991 on OpenAlexaff
Shamsul Arafin, Xianhe Liu, Zetian Mi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nanophotonics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSemiconductor Quantum Structures and Devices
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptoelectronicsMaterials scienceLasing thresholdLaserSemiconductor laser theoryNanowirePhotonicsSpontaneous emissionNitrideBiophotonicsSemiconductorOpticsWavelengthLayer (electronics)NanotechnologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One-dimensional compound semiconductor nanolasers, especially nanowire (NW)-based nanolasers utilizing III-nitride (AlGaInN) materials system, are an emerging and promising area of research. Significant achievements have been made in developing III-nitride NW lasers with emission wavelengths from the deep ultraviolet (UV) to the near-infrared spectral range. The types of lasers under investigation include Fabry-Pérot, photonic crystal, plasmonic, ring resonator, microstadium, random, polariton, and two-dimensional distributed feedback lasers. The lasing thresholds vary by several orders of magnitude, which are a direct consequence of differing NW dimensions, quality of the NWs, characteristics of NW cavities, and coupling with the substrate. For electrically injected, such as ultralow-threshold and continuous-wave III-nitride NW lasers that can operate at room temperature, the following obstacles remain: carrier loss mechanisms including defect-related nonradiative surface recombination, electron overflow, and poor hole transport; low radiative recombination efficiency and high surface recombination; poor thermal management; and highly resistive ohmic contacts on the p -layer. These obstacles must be overcome to fully realize the potential of these lasers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations110
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NanophotonicsSame topicSemiconductor Quantum Structures and DevicesFrench-language works237,207