MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078550639 · doi:10.1021/ph400114e

Modes and Mode Volumes of Leaky Optical Cavities and Plasmonic Nanoresonators

2013· article· en· W2078550639 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Photonics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhotonic Crystals and Applications
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlasmonResonatorPhotonicsDissipative systemModalMode (computer interface)Coupled mode theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electromagnetic cavity modes in photonic and plasmonic resonators offer rich and attractive regimes for tailoring the properties of light–matter interactions, yet there is a disturbing lack of a precise definition for what constitutes a cavity mode, and as a result their mathematical properties remain largely unspecified. The lack of a definition is evidenced in part by the diverse nomenclature at use, “resonance”, “leaky mode”, and “quasimode”, to name but a few, suggesting that the dissipative nature of cavity modes somehow makes them different from other modes, but an explicit distinction is rarely made. This Perspective aims to introduce the reader to some of the subtleties and working definitions that can be rigorously applied when describing the modal properties of leaky optical cavities and plasmonic nanoresonators. We describe some recent developments in the field, including calculation methods for quasinormal modes of both photonic and plasmonic resonators and the concept of a generalized effective mode volume, and we illustrate the theory with several representative cavity structures from the fields of photonic crystals and nanoplasmonics.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.218 · 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