MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2079842202 · doi:10.1117/12.658088

Emerging trends in photonics modeling

2006· article· en· W2079842202 on OpenAlexaff
James Pond, T.C. Kleckner, P. Paddon, Adam Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsLumerical Solutions (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotonicsComputer scienceFinite-difference time-domain methodElectronic engineeringRange (aeronautics)Distributed computingComputational scienceEngineeringAerospace engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continued exponential improvements in computational resources bring new opportunities and challenges for photonics modeling. In particular, widely available and inexpensive computer clusters are making a dramatic impact by allowing larger simulation volumes to be computed faster. The growth in accessible computing power is driving a trend towards the most exact modeling techniques which can address an increasing range of applications in integrated optics, and allow designers to take advantage of state-of-the-art manufacturing technology. We demonstrate how this opportunity can be exploited in the area of photonic integration to rigorously simulate three-dimensional devices by FDTD previously thought to be intractable. For example, large-volume, hybrid devices composed of both dielectrics and metals with sub-wavelength structure can now be simulated. Moreover, simulations can include realistic manufacturing imperfections. This allows designers to create and optimize robust devices that are resistant to the imperfections introduced by viable, cost-effective manufacturing.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.224
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations1
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→