MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120582855 · doi:10.1109/tcapt.2005.848582

A cost-effective solution for packaging the arrayed waveguide grating (AWG) photonic components

2005· article· en· W2120582855 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging Technologies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersDivision of Materials ResearchShanghai Institute of Optics and Fine Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
KeywordsArrayed waveguide gratingMaterials scienceWaferGratingPhotonicsWaveguideProcess (computing)MachiningWafer-level packagingPackaging engineeringManufacturing costElectronic packagingSilicon photonicsOptoelectronicsPhotonic integrated circuitLaserOpticsComputer scienceMechanical engineeringWavelength-division multiplexingEngineeringWavelength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precision laser machining technology was used to cut arrayed waveguide grating (AWG) devices from 6-in wafers by following their complex profiles in a fully automatic way. A substantial cost saving in components manufacturing was achieved by an obtained device-cutting yield of 100%. The profile-cut AWG devices have smooth cutting edges and their optical performances were found unaffected by the cutting. These devices were processed in the subsequent packaging process easily without adding cost. They were proven mechanically stable in their packaging in meeting the telecommunication standards even though they have irregular geometry.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.226 · 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