MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054164240 · doi:10.1109/jlt.2011.2173556

Impact of Sidewall Roughness on Integrated Bragg Gratings

2011· article· en· W2054164240 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre D. Simard, Nicolas Ayotte, Y. Painchaud, Sylvain Bédard, Sophie LaRochelle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lightwave Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Fiber Optic Sensors
Canadian institutionsTeraXion (Canada)Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFabricationRobustness (evolution)ApodizationSurface finishGratingOpticsSurface roughnessSpectral shape analysisMaterials scienceFiber Bragg gratingSpectral linePhysicsWavelength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major issue in the fabrication of integrated Bragg grating (IBG) filters in highly confined waveguides is the average effective index fluctuations caused by sidewall roughness. In this work, we model the impact of this effect on IBG spectral responses and we identify key parameters that need to be controlled in order to minimize distortions. We show that only low spatial frequency components of the noise are relevant to the calculation of the IBG spectral response, which decreases considerably the computation time. Furthermore, we present an IBG emulator that allows estimation of expected fabrication yield of specific gratings given that the fabrication process is well characterized. The analysis of apodized gratings is used as an example to illustrate how this modeling can help to reduce development cost by first studying robustness of IBG designs to fabrication limitations. Finally, we study analytically the impact of sidewall roughness having short correlation lengths and small roughness variances on the spectral response of weak gratings.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations53
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lightwave TechnologySame topicAdvanced Fiber Optic SensorsFrench-language works237,207