MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050642986 · doi:10.1364/josaa.28.002100

Bessel–Gauss beams as rigorous solutions of the Helmholtz equation

2011· article· en· W2050642986 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandre April

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America A · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOrbital Angular Momentum in Optics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHelmholtz equationParaxial approximationBeam (structure)Superposition principleGaussian beamBessel functionPhysicsGaussBessel beamOpticsQuantum mechanicsBoundary value problem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of the nonparaxial propagation of optical beams has received considerable attention. In particular, the so-called complex-source/sink model can be used to describe strongly focused beams near the beam waist, but this method has not yet been applied to the Bessel-Gauss (BG) beam. In this paper, the complex-source/sink solution for the nonparaxial BG beam is expressed as a superposition of nonparaxial elegant Laguerre-Gaussian beams. This provides a direct way to write the explicit expression for a tightly focused BG beam that is an exact solution of the Helmholtz equation. It reduces correctly to the paraxial BG beam, the nonparaxial Gaussian beam, and the Bessel beam in the appropriate limits. The analytical expression can be used to calculate the field of a BG beam near its waist, and it may be useful in investigating the features of BG beams under tight focusing conditions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations37
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Optical Society of America ASame topicOrbital Angular Momentum in OpticsFrench-language works237,207