MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133660843 · doi:10.1364/ol.29.002545

Gradient-index narrow-bandpass filter fabricated with glancing-angle deposition

2004· article· en· W2133660843 on OpenAlex
Andy C. van Popta, Matthew M. Hawkeye, Jeremy C. Sit, Michael J. Brett

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

VenueOptics Letters · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicOptical Coatings and Gratings
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceRefractive indexOpticsBand-pass filterTransmittanceThin filmOptical filterWavelengthCenter frequencyOptical coatingOptoelectronicsNanotechnologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glancing-angle deposition (GLAD) is a fabrication method capable of producing thin films with engineered nanoscale porosity variations. GLAD can be used to create optical thin-film interference filters from a single source material by modification of the film refractive index through control of film porosity. We present the effects of introducing a layer of constant low density into the center of a rugate thin-film filter fabricated with the GLAD technique. A rugate filter is characterized by a sinusoidal refractive-index profile. Embedding a layer of constant refractive index, with a thickness equal to one period of the rugate index variation, causes a narrow bandpass to appear within the filter's larger stop band. Transmittance measurements of such a gradient-index narrow-bandpass filter, formed with titanium dioxide, revealed an 83% transmittance peak at a vacuum wavelength of 522 nm, near the center of the stop band, with a FWHM bandwidth of 15 nm.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.194 · 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