MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Wavelength-selective emitters with pyramid nanogratings enhanced by multiple resonance modes

2016· article· en· W2290667122 on OpenAlexafffund
Nghia Nguyen-Huu, Jaromı́r Pištora, Michael Čada

Bibliographic record

VenueNanotechnology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermal Radiation and Cooling Technologies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsThermal emittanceMaterials scienceGratingOpticsWavelengthPoynting vectorPlasmonThermophotovoltaicOptoelectronicsTungstenResonance (particle physics)Magnetic fieldPhysicsBeam (structure)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Binary gratings with high or low metal filling ratios in a grating region have been demonstrated as successful candidates in enhancing the emittance of emitters for thermophotovoltaics since they could support surface plasmons (SPs), the Rayleigh-Wood anomaly (RWA), or cavity resonance (CR) within their geometries. This work shows that combining a tungsten binary grating with a low and high filling ratio to form a pyramid grating can significantly increase the emittance, which is nearly perfect in the wavelength region from 0.6 to 1.72 μm, while being 0.1 at wavelengths longer than 2.5 μm. Moreover, the emittance spectrum of the hybrid tungsten grating is insensitive to the angle of incidence. The enhancement demonstrated by magnetic field and Poynting vector patterns is due to the interplay between SPs and RWA modes at short wavelengths, and CR at long wavelengths. Furthermore, a combined grating made of nickel is also proposed providing enhanced emittance in a wide angle of incidence.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanotechnologySame topicThermal Radiation and Cooling TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207