MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047048412 · doi:10.1119/1.2060650

A Demonstration of the Critical Angle Without Using Total Internal Reflection

2005· article· en· W2047048412 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

VenueThe Physics Teacher · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal internal reflectionTotal external reflectionOpticsSnell's lawRefractionPhysicsReflection (computer programming)Refractive indexCritical frequencyContact angleSurface (topology)Acute angleSolid angleGeometryMathematicsDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The success of a light ray's transmission to a medium of lower index of refraction depends upon its incident angle at the boundary. If this angle, when measured from the normal, is greater than a certain critical angle, the ray will reflect totally, remaining in the high-index medium. Snell's law, which says that n1 sin θ1 = n2 sin θ2, easily gives the critical angle as θ1 = sin−1(n2/n1) by setting the angle of refraction to θ2 = 90°. Demonstrations of the critical angle phenomenon usually work with this operational definition. For example, as in Fig. 1, one directs a beam of light radially through the curved surface of a semicircular piece of glass and rotates the semicircle until no ray is seen exiting the flat surface. We describe here a demonstration of the critical angle that does not employ rays leaving the higher-index medium but entering it.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.262 · 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