MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068503422 · doi:10.1364/ao.41.003039

Topical Meeting on Optical Interference Coatings (OIC’2001): manufacturing problem

2002· article· en· W2068503422 on OpenAlexaff
J. A. Dobrowolski, Stephen Browning, M. R. Jacobson, María E. Nadal

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSurface Roughness and Optical Measurements
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaInstitute for Microstructural Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpticsTransmittanceMaterials scienceOptical coatingSputter depositionSputteringInterference (communication)CoatingPhysical vapor depositionDeposition (geology)Interference filterEvaporationElectron beam physical vapor depositionThin filmIon beamOptical filterBeam (structure)OptoelectronicsChemical vapor depositionPhysicsComputer scienceComposite materialWavelengthNanotechnologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measurements are presented of the experimental filters submitted to the first optical thin-film manufacturing problem posed in conjunction with the Topical Meeting on Optical Interference Coatings, in which the object was to produce multilayers with spectral transmittance and reflectance curves that were as close as possible to the target values that were specified in the 400- to 600-nm spectral region. No limit was set on the overall thickness of the solutions or the number of layers used in their construction. The participants were free to use the coating materials of their choice. Six different groups submitted a total of 11 different filters for evaluation. Three different physical vapor deposition processes were used for the manufacture of the coatings: magnetron sputtering, ion-beam sputtering, and plasma-ion-assisted, electron-beam gun evaporation. The solutions ranged in metric thickness from 758 to 4226 nm and consisted of between 8 and 27 layers. For all but two of the samples submitted, the average rms departure of the measured transmittances and reflectances from the target values in the spectral region of interest was between 0.98% and 1.55%.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.007

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations24
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicSurface Roughness and Optical MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207