MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102081009 · doi:10.1109/jlt.2005.849940

Second-order theory for self-phase modulation and cross-phase modulation in optical fibers

2005· article· en· W2102081009 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

VenueJournal of Lightwave Technology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-phase modulationPhase modulationSelf-phase modulationOpticsAmplitudeNonlinear distortionPhysicsPerturbation (astronomy)Amplitude modulationNonlinear systemModulation (music)Dispersion (optics)Pulse-amplitude modulationOptical fiberNonlinear opticsFrequency modulationPulse (music)TelecommunicationsQuantum mechanicsPhase noiseOptoelectronicsRadio frequencyAcousticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors develop a second-order perturbation technique for the study of self-phase modulation (SPM) and cross-phase modulation (XPM) effects in optical fibers. When the dispersion distance is much shorter than the nonlinear length, it is found that the difference between the first- and second-order solution is negligible. However, as the dispersion distance increases, nonlinearity becomes a stronger perturbation, and the first-order theory is not adequate to describe the SPM effects. However, the results obtained using the second-order perturbation technique is in good agreement with numerical simulations even when the dispersion distance is longer than the nonlinear length. When pulses of different channels are copropagating in a fiber, they undergo amplitude distortion and timing shift due to XPM. The perturbation technique presented in this paper accounts for both amplitude distortion and timing shift of a pulse due to XPM.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.278 · 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