MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055791006 · doi:10.1063/1.3405839

High performance resonance Raman spectroscopy using volume Bragg gratings as tunable light filters

2010· article· en· W2055791006 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthieu Paillet, François Meunier, Marc Verhaegen, Sébastien Blais-Ouellette, Richard Martel

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMechanical and Optical Resonators
Canadian institutionsPhoton Etc (Canada)Université de MontréalRegroupement Québécois sur les Matériaux de Pointe
FundersNational Research Council CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsRaman spectroscopyMaterials scienceMonochromatorGratingOpticsFiber Bragg gratingOptoelectronicsLaserCoherent anti-Stokes Raman spectroscopyResonance (particle physics)WavelengthRaman scattering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We designed a near infrared tunable resonance Raman spectroscopy system based on a tandem of thick volume Bragg gratings (VBGs). VBGs are here the constituents of two light filtering units: a tunable laser line filter (LLF) and a tunable notch filter (NF). When adapted in a micro-Raman setup with a single stage monochromator (1800 gr/mm grating), the tandem of LLF and NF allowed measurements of Raman signals down to +/-20 cm(-1). The good performance and fast tunability of the VBG Raman system was demonstrated on a sulfur powder and on a bulk single-walled carbon nanotube sample through a series of 22 Stokes and anti-Stokes spectra recorded at excitation wavelengths between 800 and 990 nm. The main drawbacks of the setup are the limited spectral range to the near infrared and the small angular acceptance of the filters (approximately 1 mrad), which causes mainly attenuation problems with the NF. The impact of the main limitations is discussed and solutions are provided.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicMechanical and Optical ResonatorsFrench-language works237,207