MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2741561414 · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-07810-8

A subwavelength spot and a three-dimensional optical trap formed by a single planar element with azimuthal light

2017· article· en· W2741561414 on OpenAlexaff
Jian Guan, Jie Lin, Yuan Ma, Jiubin Tan, Peng Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOrbital Angular Momentum in Optics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsOpticsPhysicsDiffractionNumerical aperturePlanarOptical vortexOptical tweezersFull width at half maximumNear and far fieldWavelengthBeam (structure)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The generation of subwavelength spots smaller than the Abbe diffraction limit has attracted great interest due to the various applications in many fields, such as high-density optical data storage and particle manipulation. Planar optics that can miniaturize conventional refractive optics have become increasingly attractive. In this work, we first formed a subwavelength bright spot and a three-dimensional optical trap under the illumination of an azimuthally polarized (AP) beam by only a single planar element, a spiral zone plate (SZP). Initially, the SZP was proposed as a computer-generated hologram to generate optical phase singularities. However, the SZP in this work was used to focus and modulate the incident AP beam with a vortex phase simultaneously. Therefore, no additional vortex phase modulating element was introduced in our method. The SZP has an ultra-long focal length of 250λ for a numerical aperture (NA) of 0.95 and an incident wavelength of 632.8 nm. The generated spot is purely transversely polarized with a lateral full width at half maximum (FWHM) of 0.43λ beyond the diffraction limit of 0.54λ. The generated focal field formed a stable optical trap for a Rayleigh dielectric particle in three dimensions.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicOrbital Angular Momentum in OpticsFrench-language works237,207