MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161589943 · doi:10.1364/josab.21.002095

Coupling between two collinear air-core Bragg fibers

2004· article· en· W2161589943 on OpenAlexaff
Maksim Skorobogatiy, Kunimasa Saitoh, Masanori Koshiba

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America B · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Fiber Optic Sensors
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultipole expansionCoupling (piping)OpticsCladding (metalworking)Core (optical fiber)RadiationPower dividers and directional couplersRADIUSOptical fiberMolecular physicsPhysicsMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We characterize coupling between two identical collinear hollow-core Bragg fibers, assuming a TE01 launching condition. Using a multipole method and a finite-element method, we have investigated the dependence of the beat length between supermodes of the coupled fibers and supermode radiation losses as a function of the interfiber separation, the fiber core radius, and the index of the cladding. We established that coupling is maximal when the fibers are touching each other and decreases dramatically during the first hundreds of nanometers of separation. However, residual coupling with the strength proportional to the fiber radiation loss decreased over a long range as an inverse square root of the interfiber separation and exhibited periodic variation with interfiber separation. Finally, we considered coupling between the TE01 modes with a view to designing a directional coupler. We found that for fibers with large enough core radii one can identify broad frequency ranges in which the intermodal coupling strength exceeds supermode radiation losses by 1 order of magnitude, thus opening the possibility of building a directional coupler. We attribute such unusually strong intermode coupling both to the resonant effects in the intermirror cavity and to proximity interaction between the leaky modes localized in the mirror.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Optical Society of America BSame topicAdvanced Fiber Optic SensorsFrench-language works237,207