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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optical metamaterials have redefined how we understand light in notable ways: from strong response to optical magnetic fields, negative refraction, fast and slow light propagation in zero index and trapping structures, to flat, thin and perfect lenses. Many rules of thumb regarding optics, such as μ = 1, now have an exception, and basic formulas, such as the Fresnel equations, have been expanded. The field of metamaterials has developed strongly over the past two decades. Leveraging structured materials systems to generate tailored response to a stimulus, it has grown to encompass research in optics, electromagnetics, acoustics and, increasingly, novel hybrid material responses. This roadmap is an effort to present emerging fronts in areas of optical metamaterials that could contribute and apply to other research communities. By anchoring each contribution in current work and prospectively discussing future potential and directions, the authors are translating the work of the field in selected areas to a wider community and offering an incentive for outside researchers to engage our community where solid links do not already exist.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it