MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171117209 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2004.1347643

A dynamic multi-wavelength simulink model for EDFA

2004· article· en· W2171117209 on OpenAlexaff
S. Pintér, Jean Jiang, Xavier Fernando

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptical amplifierAmplified spontaneous emissionWavelength-division multiplexingErbiumFiber amplifierAmplifierWavelengthNoise (video)Erbium doped fiber amplifierComputer scienceOpticsElectronic engineeringMaterials sciencePhysicsTelecommunicationsEngineeringBandwidth (computing)Laser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The erbium doped fiber amplifier (EDFA) is an imperative element in DWDM networks. This all-optical amplifier enables simultaneous amplification of multiple wavelengths. Nevertheless, uneven gain across the usable wavelength region remains a concern. Understanding and modelling the dynamic characteristics of an EDFA is an important step towards achieving a flat gain spectrum. A Simulink model for investigating EDFA dynamics has been developed by Novak and Gieske (2002). Following their work, we have developed an enhanced version of the EDFA Simulink model with more capabilities. Previous results were verified for the given doped fiber length without noise. In addition, the forward amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) noise is added to the model and the optimum length is determined (with and without considering ASE) by simulation and used in all subsequent stages. A significant addition to the model is the ability to handle multiple channels using the absorption and emission coefficients previously obtained experimentally. The resulting model accurately represents EDFA gain dynamics and forward ASE. Simulation results show a 12 dB gain fluctuation across a 40 mn window per EDFA.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207