MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165921504 · doi:10.1364/ao.45.003495

Ferrofluidic adaptive mirrors

2006· article· en· W2165921504 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

VenueApplied Optics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysics and Sensor Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActuatorDeformable mirrorComputer scienceOpticsScalabilityPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A magnetic liquid mirror based on ferrofluids was demonstrated. Magnetic liquid mirrors represent a major departure from solid mirror technology. They present both advantages and disadvantages with respect to established technologies. Stroke (from a fraction of a wave to several hundreds of micrometers), cost (a few dollars per actuator), and scalability (hundreds of thousands of actuators) are the main advantages. Very large mirrors having diameters of the order of a meter should be feasible. There are a few disadvantages. The most important disadvantage is the time response, which is of the order of a few milliseconds. Although this time response could be further decreased with additional technical developments, it is unlikely to match the speed of solid mirrors. The technology is still in its infancy, and considerable work must still be done. However, the advantages are such that the technology is worth pursuing.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.167 · 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