MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2067509602 · doi:10.1117/12.707801

Dispersion in the quarter-wave Bragg reflection waveguide

2006· article· en· W2067509602 on OpenAlexaff
Brian R. West, Amr S. Helmy

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflection (computer programming)Dispersion (optics)OpticsMaterials scienceBragg's lawWaveguidePhysicsComputer scienceDiffraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Bragg reflection waveguide (BRW), or one-dimensional photonic bandgap waveguide, has recently received much interest for applications such as nonlinear frequency conversion, mechanically tunable air-core filters, and electron accelerators. One variation of this waveguide is the quarter-wave BRW (QtW-BRW), in which all cladding layers have a phase thickness of π/2. This places the mode in the center of the cladding stopband, ensuring the strongest possible confinement for a given pair of cladding materials. In addition, operating at the quarter-wave point permits the effective index of the guided modes to be given by a simple closed-form expression. For many applications of BRWs, the dispersion of effective index with frequency is of primary concern. In this work, we use a perturbation approach to derive analytical expressions for the dispersion of a QtW-BRW, and compare the results to numerical simulations to demonstrate accuracy. Several interesting properties of these waveguides are developed. The birefringence of the guides changes sign at the quarter-wave point. For fundamental modes of even symmetry, the first-order dispersion is always normal if the material dispersion is normal. It is shown that for certain QtW-BRW designs, group index and group velocity dispersion (GVD) can be orders of magnitude higher than is the case for their constituent materials, or on the other hand, very small or zero values of GVD can be attained. We will conclude with a discussion of the applications of such waveguides.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
Published2006
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→