MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792201713 · doi:10.1117/12.2290614

Investigation of femtosecond laser written waveguide refractive index change in toughened glass: Towards integration of photonics device inside cellphone screens (Conference Presentation)

2018· article· en· W2792201713 on OpenAlexaff
Antoine Drouin, Raman Kashyap, Jean-Sébastien Boisvert, Pierre Lorre

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemtosecondRefractive indexLaserFluenceWaveguidePhotonicsOpticsMaterials scienceOptoelectronicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Femtosecond laser written devices inside a smartphone screen, in this case Gorilla Glass ®, have been recently demonstrated1 with a high potential of increasing the functionality of cellphones, consuming minimal space using the glass screen2. Even though low loss waveguides have been reported in this glass, the behavior of the refractive index of the glass subject to femtosecond laser radiation is not well understood. Here, we propose a study of that behavior by presenting the identification of two major transitions where the induced refractive index seems to decrease. The first transition occurs at lower fluence and is characterized by a single structure while the second one occurs at much higher fluences, and is well characterized by a double shell structure. In both these transitions, the refractive index at the center of the structure seems to decrease. However, it should be noted that between these two regimes, there is narrow regime in which light seem to be guide in the middle of the fs processed region, confirming the possibility of making a single pass waveguide. The fluence limits of each regime has been investigated as has the quality of the waveguide made by a single and multi-passes. The refractive index of the affected zones is mapped by a highly sensitive phase-interference technique. [1] Lapointe, J., Gagné, M., Li M.J., and Kashyap R., "Making smart phones smarter with photonics," Op. Exp., Vol. 22, No. 13, pp. 15473-15483, (2014) [2] Lapointe, J., Parent, F., Soares de Lima Filho, E., Loranger, S., and Kashyap R. "Toward the integration of optical sensors in smartphone screens using femtosecond laser writing," Optics Letters, Vol. 40, No. 23, pp. 5654-5657, (2015)

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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207