MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2056949718 · doi:10.1117/12.567125

BRAGGATIR: Bragg and total internal reflection waveguides

2004· article· en· W2056949718 on OpenAlexaff
M.-J. Picard, Ilya Golub, A. Delâge

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Microstructural Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpticsBend radiusMaterials scienceWaveguideFree spectral rangeTotal internal reflectionReflection (computer programming)Beam propagation methodRADIUSBragg's lawFiber Bragg gratingResonatorRefractive indexBendingOptical fiberPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel type of waveguides utilizing simultaneously Bragg reflection and TIR (total internal reflection) for light confinement is proposed and studied. The BRAGGATIR waveguides combine the advantages of Bragg waveguides and lateral ARROWs (antiresonant reflecting optical waveguides) -- namely, large core sizes allowing easy and low loss fiber coupling and their reduced sensitivity to fabrication errors, with the properties of high index contrast ridge waveguides which tolerate small bending radius. Since the proposed waveguides have only one Fabry-Perot layer, they are more compact compared to the Bragg waveguides. Moreover, the large dispersion of the BRAGGATIR waveguides near the resonances may find applications in optical signal processing. Beam propagation method (BPM) and mode solver numerical simulations were performed and the bending losses of different waveguides, namely BRAGGATIR, ridge and ARROW, were compared for different bending radii down to 10 microns. The results demonstrate advantage of the proposed waveguides allowing very small radius ring resonators with large free spectral range and more compact integrated optics devices.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE→Same topicPhotonic and Optical Devices→French-language works237,207→