MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118024057 · doi:10.1117/12.911368

Selecting the polarization in silicon photonic wire components

2012· article· en· W2118024057 on OpenAlexaff
Dan‐Xia Xu, A. Delâge, Jens H. Schmid, Rubin Ma, Shurui Wang, J. Lapointe, Martin Vachon, Pavel Cheben, Siegfried Janz

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolarization (electrochemistry)SiliconBirefringenceMaterials scienceOpticsResonatorSilicon photonicsOptoelectronicsFabricationPolarization rotatorPhotonicsSilicon on insulatorPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Silicon photonic wire waveguides are usually highly birefringent, so they are generally designed to operate for one particular polarization. For commonly used waveguides with a silicon thickness of 220 nm, TE polarization is preferred since TM is only weakly guided. For waveguides with a silicon thickness larger than 250 nm, both TE and TM polarizations have been employed. Overall, the choice of polarization has largely appeared arbitrary. In this presentation we review the pertinent polarization-dependent waveguide properties, including losses, back-reflection, polarization conversion and fabrication tolerances, with the intent to suggest guidelines for choosing the proper polarization. Through experimental evidence, we show that TM polarization has several important advantages and can support high performance resonators with a radius down to 2 μm.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207