MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171849248 · doi:10.1109/tim.2003.814687

On the use of intensity optical pumping and coherent population trapping techniques in the implementation of atomic frequency standards

2003· article· en· W2171849248 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrequency standardHyperfine structureAtomic clockOptical pumpingPopulationMicrowavePhysicsLaserTrappingOpticsAtomic physicsResonance (particle physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper summarizes the relative advantages and disadvantages of coherent population trapping (CPT) or intensity optical pumping (IOP) for the implementation of a passive atomic frequency standard using the isotope /sup 87/Rb. This paper outlines the basic principles common to both CPT and IOP when using laser optical pumping, and makes explicit their similarities and their differences. This paper describes experimental results obtained in the same cell on the characteristics of the CPT and IOP /sup 87/Rb-hyperfine-resonance line. The measurements showed that the signal contrast is larger in CPT than in IOP for the same resulting line width; the light shift is smaller in CPT than in IOP, and is easier to control; in principle, a passive frequency standard based on CPT has a smaller size than that based on IOP, due to the absence of a microwave cavity. Conclusions on overall expectations for the future of such frequency standards are drawn.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.248 · 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