MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136360200 · doi:10.1109/leosst.2007.4288340

Briadbabd 3D Integrated Optics in Photonic Band Gap Materials

2007· article· en· W2136360200 on OpenAlexaff
Sanjeev John

Bibliographic record

VenueDigest of the LEOS Summer Topical Meetings · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhotonic Crystals and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpticsPhotonicsPhotonic crystalOptoelectronicsPhotonic integrated circuitLithographyMaterials scienceDiffractionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary form only given. Photonic band gap (PBG) materials are artificial, periodic, dielectrics that enable engineering of the most fundamental properties of electromagnetic waves. These include the laws of refraction, diffraction, and spontaneous emission of light. Unlike traditional semiconductors that rely on the propagation of electrons through an atomic lattice. PBG materials execute their novel functions through selective trapping or "localization of light". Three dimensional (3D) PBG materials offer a unique opportunity to simultaneously (i) synthesize micron-scale 3D optical circuits that do not suffer from diffractive losses and (ii) engineer the electromagnetic vacuum density of states in this 3D optical micro-chip. The 3D PBG enables broadband on-chip optical communication in fully three-dimensional optical micro-circuits. Unlike traditional wave-guides that confine light in a high refractive index core by total internal reflection, the circuit paths in a PBG material may consist of air. They guide light through wave interference effects, the hallmark of the localization phenomenon. In the case of the PBG optical circuit, there are three geometrical dimensions for device integration and an additional dimension of frequency bandwidth, whereby hundreds of optical wavelength channels of information can be conveyed in parallel through a single PBG wave-guide. I review recent approaches to micro-fabrication of photonic crystals with a large 3D PBG centered near 1.5 microns. These include direct laser-writing techniques, holographic lithography, silicon double inversion, and a newly invented optical phase mask lithography technique.

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 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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigest of the LEOS Summer Topical MeetingsSame topicPhotonic Crystals and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207