Realization of large reflective surface of silica-waveguide turning corner with strategic deep-trenching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, a strategic deep trenching with theoretical optimization is adopted to reach a successful reflective effect of WTC structure. The experimental results are within the reasonable range. We select the SOS refractive index difference of 0.75%, waveguide core size of 5.5 μm × 5.5 μm. We know, only the trench bottom is at the same depth as the waveguide core, the side-wall can reflect the guided-mode from an input waveguide to an output waveguide, so set the trenching depth of 26 μm, which is realized with the inductively coupled plasma (ICP) dry etching technique. Such a deep trenching process has to face the critic challenge in the bottom position and angle of trench side-wall as well as the roughness. At 1.55 μm wavelength, we have experimentally observed the output guided-mode and then measure the average optical loss of each WTC structure is 11 dB, implying that an optical reflective efficiency of 8% has been reached.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".