MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139784017 · doi:10.1002/lpor.201400083

Waveguide sub‐wavelength structures: a review of principles and applications

2014· review· en· W2139784017 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Halir, Przemek J. Bock, Pavel Cheben, Alejandro Ortega‐Moñux, Carlos Alonso‐Ramos, Jens H. Schmid, J. Lapointe, Dan‐Xia Xu, J. Gonzalo Wangüemert‐Pérez, Íñigo Molina‐Fernández, Siegfried Janz

Bibliographic record

VenueLaser & Photonics Review · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCMC Microsystems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotonicsWavelengthOpticsBroadbandWaveguidePolarization (electrochemistry)OptoelectronicsMulti-mode optical fiberSilicon photonicsPhysicsOptical fiberMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Periodic structures with a sub‐wavelength pitch have been known since Hertz conducted his first experiments on the polarization of electromagnetic waves. While the use of these structures in waveguide optics was proposed in the 1990s, it has been with the more recent developments of silicon photonics and high‐precision lithography techniques that sub‐wavelength structures have found widespread application in the field of photonics. This review first provides an introduction to the physics of sub‐wavelength structures. An overview of the applications of sub‐wavelength structures is then given including: anti‐reflective coatings, polarization rotators, high‐efficiency fiber–chip couplers, spectrometers, high‐reflectivity mirrors, athermal waveguides, multimode interference couplers, and dispersion engineered, ultra‐broadband waveguide couplers among others. Particular attention is paid to providing insight into the design strategies for these devices. The concluding remarks provide an outlook on the future development of sub‐wavelength structures and their impact in photonics. image

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations641
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaser & Photonics ReviewSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207