Optics simulations: a Python workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerical simulations allow teachers and students to indirectly perform sophisticated experiments that cannot be realizable otherwise due to cost and other constraints. During the past few decades there has been an explosion in the development of numerical tools concurrently with open source environments such as Python software. This availability of open source software offers an incredible opportunity for advancing teaching methodologies as well as in research. More specifically it is possible to correlate theoretical knowledge with experimental measurements using “virtual” experiments. We have been working on the development of numerical simulation tools using the Python program package and we have concentrated on geometric and physical optics simulations. The advantage of doing hands-on numerical experiments is that it allows the student learner to be an active participant in the pedagogical/learning process rather than playing a passive role as in the traditional lecture format. Even in laboratory classes because of constraints of space, lack of equipment and often-large numbers of students, many students play a passive role since they work in groups of 3 or more students. Furthermore these new tools help students get a handle on numerical methods as well simulations and impart a “feel” for the physics under investigation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.112 | 0.066 |
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".