Superimposed Holographic Gratings In Single-mode Planar Optical Waveguides For Wavelength Demultiplexing Applications.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea of using superimposed holographic gratings to achieve high performance optical interconnections and wavelength demultiplexing structures has recently emerged [ 1-21. We present for the first time a coupled mode analysis of superimposed holographic transmission gratings in single-mode planar optical waveguides. We show that coupling between gratings occurs and affects diffraction efficiencies and wavelength and angular selectivities. In addition, polarization of the input wave, angular and spectral separation of the output channels and relative strengths of the gratings have to be taken into account in device design and analysis. Nevertheless, very good angular and wavelength channel separation (< 0.2 and < 20A), low crosstalk (-20dB) and high fanout density are shown to be achievable in properly designed devices. (I] holographic gratings and substratc wave propagation. Appl. Opr., vol. 3 1. pp. 236-249, 1992.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".