MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566723838 · doi:10.1103/physreva.92.052504

Frequency-offset separated oscillatory fields

2015· article· en· W2566723838 on OpenAlex
Amar C. Vutha, E. A. Hessels

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum optics and atomic interactions
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPhysicsOffset (computer science)Frequency offsetRelative phaseSIGNAL (programming language)Computational physicsAcousticsPhase (matter)Nuclear magnetic resonanceQuantum mechanicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A frequency-offset separated-oscillatory-field technique is presented. The technique is a modification of the Ramsey method of separated oscillatory fields [Phys. Rev. 76, 996 (1949)], in which the frequencies of the two separated oscillatory fields are slightly offset from each other, so that the relative phase of the two fields varies continuously with time. With this technique, the detection signal oscillates in time at the offset frequency, and the resonance frequency is obtained by using a simple straight-line fit of the phase of this signal. The technique has the advantages of being insensitive to the frequency response of the experimental system, of being sensitive only to noise at the offset frequency, and of allowing systematic effects to be more cleanly resolved due to the simple lineshape.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.317 · 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