Reproducible ultra-long FBGs in phase corrected non-uniform fibers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultra-long fiber Bragg gratings (FBGs), i.e., FBGs of several tens of cm in length, have attracted much attention in the last few decades for their potential applications in advanced devices. Although numerous fabrication methods as well as ultra-long functionalized FBGs have been proposed and demonstrated successfully, such devices are difficult to reproduce. We have recently found that specialty optical fibers of the type required for these applications are highly non-uniform on a short length scale, severely affecting the characteristics of ultra-long FBGs. We propose here a new production technique that can be adapted to any non-uniform fiber for ultra-long FBG fabrication. This technique involves a fiber characterization prior to FBG inscription followed by the writing of a phase corrected ultra-long FBG. This technique has no limitations in terms of correction amplitude or FBG length. The results are quite astonishing, as near-perfect 1-m-length-scale FBGs are possible in fibers in which it was impossible to write uniform period gratings prior to phase correction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".