MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102929305 · doi:10.1088/0031-8949/90/7/074030

Classical polarization multipoles: paraxial versus nonparaxial

2015· article· en· W2102929305 on OpenAlex
Pablo de la Hoz, Gunnar Björk, Hubert de Guise, A. B. Klimov, Gerd Leuchs, L. L. Sánchez-Soto

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysica Scripta · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOrbital Angular Momentum in Optics
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaVetenskapsrådetWenner-Gren FoundationSwedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher EducationBanco Santander
KeywordsParaxial approximationPhysicsPolarization (electrochemistry)Classical mechanicsQuantum electrodynamicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss the polarization of paraxial and nonparaxial classical light fields by resorting to a multipole expansion of the corresponding polarization matrix. It turns out that only a dipolar term contributes when one considers SU(2) (paraxial) or SU(3) (nonparaxial) as fundamental symmetries. In this latter case, one can alternatively expand in SU(2) multipoles, and then both a dipolar and a quadrupolar component contribute, which explains the richer structure of this nonparaxial instance. These multipoles uniquely determine Wigner functions, in terms of which we examine some intriguing hallmarks arising in this classical scenario.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.236 · 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