MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038999004 · doi:10.1063/1.3407518

Two-dimensional subwavelength-focused imaging using a near-field probe at a λ/4 working distance

2010· article· en· W2038999004 on OpenAlexaff
Loïc Markley, George V. Eleftheriades

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNear-Field Optical Microscopy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpticsNear and far fieldInterference (communication)PhysicsWavelengthAntenna (radio)Field (mathematics)Field of viewMaterials scienceComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two-dimensional (2D) subwavelength imaging using a near-field antenna array probe is demonstrated experimentally at a probe-to-object separation distance of λ/4. Field perturbations caused by the presence of small objects are detected by monitoring the input reflection coefficient as the probe is scanned. The probe is designed to produce a subwavelength focal spot with a 0.217λ full-width half-maximum beam width. Propagating components are suppressed through destructive interference, enhancing the evanescent field enough to resolve objects spaced by 0.259λ. The poor resolving capability of a conventional single-element probe at this working distance is also addressed; it is shown that even objects spaced over a wavelength apart are inaccurately detected. A full 2D imaging experiment is carried out using eight scattered objects. The single element probe is unable to resolve any of the objects, while all but the two most closely spaced pairs are resolved by the array probe.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations23
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicNear-Field Optical MicroscopyFrench-language works237,207