MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156238640 · doi:10.1109/jlt.2003.814382

Influence of modulator chirp in assessing the performance implications of the group delay ripple of dispersion compensating fiber bragg gratings

2003· article· en· W2156238640 on OpenAlex
John C. Cartledge, H. Chen

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

VenueJournal of Lightwave Technology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChirpFiber Bragg gratingOpticsDispersion (optics)Materials scienceRippleChirp spread spectrumBandwidth (computing)Optical fiberPhysicsComputer scienceTelecommunicationsLaserSpread spectrum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The implications that the group delay ripple (GDR) of a dispersion compensating fiber Bragg grating have on transmission system performance depend on the chirp of the modulated optical signal. The wide range in the chirp properties of optical modulators and the irregular variation of the GDR over the modulated signal bandwidth make it difficult to obtain general results for the transmission performance. Using four modulators with distinct chirp properties and measured reflection spectra for two dispersion compensating gratings (DCGs), the combined effect of modulator chirp and GDR on the performance of 10-Gb/s nonreturn-to-zero dispersion compensated systems is considered. Calculated and measured results demonstrate that, to accurately assess the implications of the GDR, the chirp properties of the modulated optical signal must be considered. The relative performance obtained for distinct modulators may vary significantly, depending on the details of the chirp and GDR.

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 score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.217 · 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