MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2571076176 · doi:10.1109/jphot.2017.2649500

Determination of Reactive RF-Sputtering Parameters for Fabrication of SiOx Films With Specified Refractive Index, for Highly Reflective SiOx Distributed Bragg Reflector

2017· article· en· W2571076176 on OpenAlexafffund
Elnaz Afsharipour, Byoungyoul Park, Cyrus Shafai

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE photonics journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Fiber Optic Sensors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRefractive indexMaterials scienceFabricationDistributed Bragg reflectorSputteringDeposition (geology)OpticsOptoelectronicsReflection (computer programming)Substrate (aquarium)Thin filmComputer scienceNanotechnologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fabricating materials with specific refractive indices, which do not naturally exist in the nature, has always been an issue. This paper presents a method for fabricating SiO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">x</sub> films with specified refractive index. It is well known that the refractive index of reactively sputtered SiO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">x</sub> films depends on its deposition conditions; in this paper, this fact was employed to fabricate films with arbitrary refractive indices. A statistical study and a Genetic Algorithm are implemented that can determine the deposition conditions (including oxygen partial flow and pressure) for fabricating a film with an arbitrary refractive index in the range of 1.4-4.2. The method was experimentally shown to correctly determine the deposition conditions. The functionality of using the proposed method in fabricating optical components was further evaluated by fabricating a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) consisting of 4.5 pairs, whose refractive indices of the layers were determined by the proposed method. The DBR featured a high 95% reflection in a bandwidth of more than 270 nm, which can be categorized as a high-quality DBR. The advance of the proposed method is that the films are made from a single target source without making any physical changes in the target or substrate positions.

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 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 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 score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE photonics journalSame topicAdvanced Fiber Optic SensorsFrench-language works237,207