MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124021275 · doi:10.1364/oe.20.014891

Needles of longitudinally polarized light: guidelines for minimum spot size and tunable axial extent

2012· article· en· W2124021275 on OpenAlexafffund
Harold Dehez, Alexandre April, Michel Piché

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOrbital Angular Momentum in Optics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOpticsTransverse planeLight beamPhysicsRayBeam (structure)Lens (geology)Electric fieldFocal length

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical beams exhibiting a long depth of focus and a minimum spot size can be obtained with the tight focusing of a narrow annulus of radially polarized light, leading to a needle of longitudinally polarized light. Such beams are of increasing interest for their applications, for example in optical data storage, particle acceleration, and biomedical imaging. Hence one needs to characterize the needles of longitudinally polarized light obtained with different focusing optics and incident beams. In this paper, we present analytical expressions for the electric field of such a nearly nondiffracting, subwavelength beam obtained with a parabolic mirror or an aplanatic lens. Based on these results, we give expressions of the transverse and longitudinal full widths at half maximum of the focal lines as a function of the width of the incident annular beam and we compare the performances of the two focusing systems. Then, we propose a practical solution to produce a needle of longitudinally polarized light with a tunable axial extent and a transverse width reaching the theoretical limit of 0.36λ.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations123
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicOrbital Angular Momentum in OpticsFrench-language works237,207