MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104862609 · doi:10.1364/josaa.24.000385

Separation of surface and volume effects in scattering from heterogeneous rough surfaces: derivation of a splitting rule

2007· article· en· W2104862609 on OpenAlexaff
Charles‐Antoine Guérin, Anne Sentenac

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America A · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicElectromagnetic Scattering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSaint Paul University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScatteringPermittivityIntensity (physics)OpticsHomogeneousWavelengthIncoherent scatterMaterials scienceMixing (physics)Surface (topology)PhysicsComputational physicsDielectricCondensed matter physicsStatistical physicsMathematicsGeometryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We give theoretical support to the splitting rule, which was recently observed numerically for the scattering from heterogeneous rough surfaces. Under certain general conditions, the incoherent intensity of a composite medium with a rough interface is the sum of the incoherent intensity of the rough homogeneous surface with an effective permittivity and the incoherent intensity of the same composite medium below a flat interface. The coherent intensity is merely that of the rough effective homogeneous surface. The effective permittivity is given accurately by the Bruggemann mixing rule, provided that the scale of fluctuations in the volume is small with respect to the electromagnetic wavelength.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Optical Society of America ASame topicElectromagnetic Scattering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207