MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082574443 · doi:10.1063/1.4759138

Omnidirectional reflection from nanocolumnar TiO2 films

2012· article· en· W2082574443 on OpenAlexaff
Viktor Leontyev, Matthew M. Hawkeye, Andriy Kovalenko, Michael J. Brett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicOptical Coatings and Gratings
Canadian institutionsNational Institute for NanotechnologyUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpticsRefractive indexMaterials scienceOmnidirectional antennaTransmittanceDistributed Bragg reflectorIsotropyOptoelectronicsPhysicsAntenna (radio)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anisotropic properties of columnar nanoporous thin films were utilized to design and fabricate interference mirrors with lossless omnidirectional reflection in the visible spectral range. Index graded columnar films with distributed Bragg reflector (DBR), sinusoidal, and Gaussian refractive index profiles were studied using finite-difference frequency-domain and finite-difference time-domain methods, with an emphasis on maximizing the omnidirectional reflection bandwidth. Titanium dioxide columnar films with sixteen period sinusoidal refractive index profile were fabricated using the glancing angle deposition technique and characterized by angle resolved transmittance measurements. Simulations and experimental measurements have shown the presence of the omnidirectional reflection band up to 5% wide for a film with a maximum refractive index nmax=2.3 and refractive index contrast Δn=0.8. Simulations further showed that with the optimal choice of the refractive index variation range, the omnidirectional reflection band can reach 10.5% width in TiO2 films with a sinusoidal index profile, 14.5% with a DBR index profile, and 12% with a Gaussian profile. Due to the optical anisotropy of the columnar films, the reflection bandwidth exceeded the corresponding value, observed in isotropic analogs, by a factor of three to four depending on the choice of the refractive index profile.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicOptical Coatings and GratingsFrench-language works237,207