Laser drilling and routing in optical fibers and tapered micropipettes using excimer, femtosecond, and CO 2 lasers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used an excimer laser (193 nm), a femtosecond laser (775 nm) and a CO2 laser (10.6 µm) to drill cylindrical holes in fused silica optical fibers and in glass micro-pipettes. CO2 laser-drilling using tip processing results in tapered holes with larger diameters than the holes drilled with the excimer and the femtosecond laser. Although routing of holes of various shapes results in sharper edges and a higher aspect ratio when the femtosecond laser is used, the CO2 laser could still be used to route rectangular holes in fused silica optical fibers. Albeit hole dimensions and details are smaller when micromachined with the excimer and the femtosecond lasers, the optical fibers are very brittle at the end of the process. CO2 lasers offer the advantage of producing higher fused silica ablation rates with much better polished surfaces and a better mechanical integrity, which are usually more suitable in some applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".