MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138931608 · doi:10.1364/ol.37.000912

Limits for superfocusing with finite evanescent wave amplification

2012· article· en· W2138931608 on OpenAlex

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 · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNear-Field Optical Microscopy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffractionOpticsSuperlensPhysicsLimit (mathematics)Evanescent waveFocus (optics)Aperture (computer memory)Interference (communication)Computer scienceAcousticsTelecommunicationsChannel (broadcasting)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perfect lensing using negative refractive index materials and radiationless electromagnetic interference both provides extreme subwavelength focusing by "amplifying" evanescent wave components that are usually lost. This Letter provides a relation between the achievable focus spot size, the amplification available, and the focal length. This may be considered as a revised version of Abbe's diffraction limit for focusing systems that have evanescent wave amplification. It is useful in comparing the amplification achieved in various subwavelength focusing implementations as well as determining when it is better to use existing near-field techniques, such as simple diffraction from an aperture or slit, than to attempt complicated superfocusing.

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 score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.198 · 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