MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168421043 · doi:10.1002/9781119506003.ch1

Fundamental Optical Properties of Materials<scp>I</scp>

2019· other· en· W2168421043 on OpenAlexaff
Safa Kasap, Wee Chong Tan, Jai Singh, Asim K. Ray

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPhase-change materials and chalcogenides
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefractive indexMolar absorptivityTransmittanceOpticsDispersion (optics)Materials scienceDispersion relationAttenuation coefficientMaximaExtinction (optical mineralogy)Cauchy distributionPhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical properties of a material change or affect the characteristics of light passing through it by modifying its propagation vector or intensity. Two of the most important optical parameters are the refractive index and the extinction coefficient, which are generically called optical constants, although some authors include other optical coefficients within this terminology. This chapter presents the refractive index and extinction coefficient in detail, along with some common dispersion relations. It presents various common dispersion relationships such as the Cauchy, Sellmeier, Wemple–DiDomenico dispersion relations, and explains the determination of the optical constants of a material in thin film form using the popular Swanepoel technique. The latter technique is based on the interference of waves in the thin film, and uses the maxima and minima in the transmittance spectrum to extract the dispersion relation for refractive index and extinction coefficient. The chapter also considers the transmittance of light through a thick semitransparent plate.

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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.007

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhase-change materials and chalcogenidesFrench-language works237,207