An analytical study of the power distribution patterns of silica waveguides with high parabolic cylindrical deformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An attempt is made to determine the relative power distribution in a step‐index parabolic cylindrical waveguide (PCW) with high deformation across the direction of propagation. The guide is assumed to be made of silica. The scalar field approximation is employed for the analysis under which a vanishing refractive‐index (RI) difference in the waveguide materials is considered. Further, no approximation for fields is used in the analytical treatment. Due to the geometry of such waveguides, PCWs lose the well‐defined modal discreteness, and a kind of mode bunching is observed instead, which becomes much more prominent in PCWs with high bends. However, with the increase in cross‐sectional size, the mode‐bunching tendency is slightly reduced. The general expressions for power in the guiding and nonguiding sections are obtained, and the fractional power patterns in all of the sections are presented for PCWs of various cross‐sectional dimensions. It is observed that the confinement of power in the core section is increased for PCWs of larger cross‐sectional size. Moreover, a fairly uniform distribution of power is seen over the modes having intermediate values of propagation constants. © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Microwave Opt Technol Lett 32: 127–133, 2002.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".