MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045819818 · doi:10.1117/12.473826

Polarization independent grating-coupling in planar wave-guide using photo-induced birefringence

2003· article· en· W2045819818 on OpenAlexaff
Donald A. Peyrot, Tigran Galstian, Roger A. Lessard

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicOptical Coatings and Gratings
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBirefringenceGratingOpticsPolarization (electrochemistry)Materials scienceUltrasonic gratingBlazed gratingOptoelectronicsHolographic gratingRefractive indexAnisotropyDiffraction gratingPhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effective refractive index of a guided wave depends on its polarization due to the anisotropic phase shift during the total internal reflection. Thus the grating-coupling angle is in general different for TM and TE polarized light. The compensation of this anisotropy is a difficult task. Some optical materials may present a significant birefringence when exposed to a polarized light. We would like to compensate the optical anisotropy using this photo-induced birefringence phenomenon, which would allow us to bring back the TM grating-coupling angle to the TE one. During these studies, we have developed an optical material, which allows us the formation of a relief grating via traditional light exposure techniques. At the same time, this material exhibits a significant photo-induced birefringence. This takes place thanks to the molecular reorientation phenomena after that the recording of the grating coupler is over. It is important to note that this last process does not affect significantly the grating-coupler. Furthermore we have observed that photo-induced birefringence present a strong reminiscence after the pump beam deactivation. The grating coupling experiments with and without the photo-induced phenomena were conducted.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.228 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicOptical Coatings and GratingsFrench-language works237,207