Non-collinear acousto-optical tunable filter configurations in biaxial crystals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel formulation of acoustooptic interactions is presented for predicting the Bragg angles of noncollinear acoustooptic tunable filter (AOTF) configurations in biaxial crystals. The Bragg angles of AOTF configurations in which the interaction plane contains both optical axes are determined explicitly and their dependence with respect to the refractive indices and the acoustic-wave propagation direction are treated analytically. It is shown that, in biaxial crystals, up to four noncollinear AOTF configurations can be obtained for certain directions of propagation of the acoustic wave; for any direction of propagation of the acoustic wave, at least two noncollinear configurations are always allowed. There are major differences between AOTF features obtained in biaxial crystals and those obtained in uniaxial crystals. The Bragg angles of noncollinear AOTF configurations in Tl/sub 3/AsS/sub 4/ are determined as an illustrative example. Tl/sub 3/AsS/sub 4/ is biaxial crystal that yields a very high acoustooptic figure of merit and which is highly transparent in the 0.6-10- mu m optical range. For this material the acoustooptic coefficients which may be involved in the AOTF configurations are given.>
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".