MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024377202 · doi:10.1364/josab.29.000a55

Effect of atomic layer deposition on the quality factor of silicon nanobeam cavities

2012· article· en· W2024377202 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael Gehl, Ricky Gibson, Joshua R. Hendrickson, Andrew Homyk, Antti Säynätjoki, Tapani Alasaarela, Lasse Karvonen, Ari Tervonen, Seppo Honkanen, Sander Zandbergen, Benjamin Richards, J. D. Olitzky, Axel Scherer, G. Khitrova, Hyatt M. Gibbs, Ju‐Young Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America B · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchDivision of Electrical, Communications and Cyber SystemsAcademy of FinlandAchievement Rewards for College Scientists FoundationCalifornia Institute of TechnologyNational Defense Science and Engineering GraduateTekniikan EdistämissäätiöU.S. Department of DefenseUniversity of AlbertaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSiliconDeposition (geology)Materials scienceFabricationAtomic layer depositionLayer (electronics)WavelengthOptoelectronicsQuality (philosophy)Q factorNanotechnologyPhysicsResonator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work we study the effect of thin-film deposition on the quality factor (Q) of silicon nanobeam cavities. We observe an average increase in the Q of 38±31% in one sample and investigate the dependence of this increase on the initial nanobeam hole sizes. We note that this process can be used to modify cavities that have larger than optimal hole sizes following fabrication. Additionally, the technique allows the tuning of the cavity mode wavelength and the incorporation of new materials, without significantly degrading Q.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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