MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021705741 · doi:10.1364/oe.14.013030

Figures of merit for surface plasmon waveguides

2006· article· en· W2021705741 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFigure of meritSurface plasmonOpticsPlasmonDielectricMaterials scienceSurface plasmon polaritonSlabLocalized surface plasmonAttenuationWavelengthSurface plasmon resonanceQuality (philosophy)OptoelectronicsPhysicsNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three figures of merit are proposed as quality measures for surface plasmon waveguides. They are defined as benefit-to-cost ratios where the benefit is confinement and the cost is attenuation. Three different ways of measuring confinement are considered, leading to three figures of merit. One of the figures of merit is connected to the quality factor. The figures of merit were then used to assess and compare the wavelength response of hree popular 1-D surface plasmon waveguides: the single metal-dielectric interface, the metal slab bounded by dielectric and the dielectric slab bounded by metal. Closed form expressions are given for the figures of merit of the single metal-dielectric interface.

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.

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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

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 head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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