MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151795942 · doi:10.1109/cleo.2001.948036

Stimulated temperature scattering of eye-safe laser pulses

2001· article· en· W2151795942 on OpenAlexaff
G. A. Pasmanik, E. J. Shklovsky

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSolid State Laser Technologies
Canadian institutionsPassat (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaser linewidthLaserBrillouin scatteringOpticsWavelengthMaterials scienceNanosecondScatteringOptoelectronicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary form only given. Stimulated temperature scattering (STS) has been known for many years. However, in practice it is difficult to use STS because of competing nonlinear processes, primarily stimulated Brillouin scattering SBS, which have lower threshold in the visible and near infrared regions. On the other hand, the backward (SBS) threshold increases with wavelength making application of SBS of nanosecond pulses with moderate energy at wavelengths above 1.3 /spl mu/m inefficient due to /spl lambda//sup 3/ scaling of the threshold. In a new generation of eye-safe lasers their spectral linewidth is relatively broad that also contributes to the increase of the SBS threshold. Since the increase of STS with wavelength is not so dramatic one can expect prevailing of STS over SBS at longer wavelengths. Our goal was to verify that STS can be reliably excited in eye-safe region, and to find STS media, which being not exotic or toxic, might be suggested as quite effective phase-conjugators for this region. We used a Nd:YAG laser as a pump and calcite crystal as the wavelength shifter to generate radiation at either 1384 nm or 1628 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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0080.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSolid State Laser TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207