MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025074732 · doi:10.1364/ao.43.002888

Lau array illuminator

2004· article· en· W2025074732 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

VenueApplied Optics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced optical system design
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpticsGratingCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Talbot effectAmplitudePhysicsSpatial coherenceCoherence theorySpatial frequencyDiffraction gratingCoherence lengthLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatial coherence can be created by appropriate spatial arrangements of incoherent point sources. Lau used a source of extended light and two amplitude gratings of identical periods, separated by the quarter Talbot distance, to provide coherent light. Because of the two successive amplitude gratings, most of the power is lost. By modifying the geometry of the second grating, I designed an array illuminator, providing several compression ratios and various topologies of the output plane, with significantly reduced losses. To further improve the power efficiency of the system, I used a longitudinal mirror system to collect the light rays that are lost in the initial Lau setup. Both one- and two-dimensional geometries are considered.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.181 · 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