Aperiodic nature of nanograting inscribed by femtosecond pulses
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic study was performed, both experimentally and theoretically, to investigate the structural periodicity of nanogratings inscribed by focused femtosecond pulses on the surface of dielectrics. The results surprisingly show that although nanogratings generally appear periodic they are in fact intrinsically aperiodic. In the perpendicular writing scheme, the groove spacing gradually decreases from the middle part towards both sides. In the parallel writing scheme, the groove spacing varies quasiperiodically and the variation differs with respect to pulse-to-pulse spacing. Constant groove spacing was obtained only for a particular pulse-to-pulse spacing. These Gaussian-apodized and quasiperiodic variations are found to be intrinsic. They arise from the fact that the grooves are created, depending on the writing scheme, either by a series of local-lobes with different amplitudes and material feedbacks or by a repeated generated leading side-lobe with similar but not identical amplitudes and material feedbacks. The production of each single grooves result from a nonlinear and localized process from which arises its aperiodic nature. All these intrinsically Gaussian-apodized and quasiperiodic variations can be well interpreted based on the incubation-based nanoplasmonic model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it