Comparative study of long-period gratings written in a boron co-doped fiber by an electric arc and UV irradiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents for the first time a comparative study of long-period gratings (LPGs) written by point-by-point UV irradiation and by electrical arc discharges. These gratings were inscribed in a highly photosensitive boron co-doped fiber that can be considered as a suitable platform for LPG writing using either technology. The experimental transmission data for the manufactured LPG devices fit well when compared to the simulations we carried out in parallel. As a result of each of these writing processes, we were able to obtain a remarkably good quality of grating. Two reasons could explain the observed small differences between the spectra: a slight mismatch of the period of the gratings and an unintentional tapering of the fiber during the arc-based processes. We also found that the UV irradiation at λ = 248 nm can cause clearly visible damage to the fiber's surface. As a result of the UV writing, a coupling to the asymmetrical cladding modes can take place. Moreover, the gratings written using the two technologies show a very similar refractive index and temperature-sensing properties. The only differences between them can come from a physical deformation of the fiber induced by the electric arc discharges.
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) | 0.000 | 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".