MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058316085 · doi:10.1364/ol.29.002384

Eliminating the birefringence in silicon-on-insulator ridge waveguides by use of cladding stress

2004· article· en· W2058316085 on OpenAlexaff
Dan‐Xia Xu, Pavel Cheben, Dan Dalacu, A. Delâge, Siegfried Janz, B. Lamontagne, M.-J. Picard, Winnie N. Ye

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Letters · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Microstructural Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCladding (metalworking)BirefringenceMaterials scienceOpticsSilicon on insulatorSiliconRefractive indexRidgeStress (linguistics)OptoelectronicsComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose and demonstrate the use of the cladding stress-induced photoelastic effect to eliminate modal birefringence in silicon-on-insulator (SOI) ridge waveguides. Birefringence-free operation was achieved for waveguides with otherwise large birefringence by use of properly chosen thickness and stress of the upper cladding layer. With the stress levels typically found in cladding materials such as SiO2, the birefringence modification range can be as large as 10(-3). In arrayed waveguide grating demultiplexers that were fabricated in a SOI platform, we demonstrated the reduction of the birefringence from 1.2 x 10(-3) (without the upper cladding) to 4.5 x 10(-5) when a 0.8-microm oxide upper cladding with a stress of -320 MPa (compressive) was used. Because the index changes induced by the stress are orders of magnitude smaller than the waveguide core-cladding index contrast, the associated mode mismatch loss is negligible.

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 score0.000
Threshold uncertainty score0.001

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations77
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics LettersSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207