MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800600879 · doi:10.1515/nanoph-2017-0117

Huygens’ metasurfaces from microwaves to optics: a review

2018· review· en· W2800600879 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNanophotonics · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMetamaterials and Metasurfaces Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloakingOpticsPhysicsHuygens–Fresnel principleElectromagnetic radiationMicrowaveRefractionElectromagnetic fieldMetamaterialReflection (computer programming)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, the basic principles and the main applications of Huygens’ metasurfaces (HMSs) are reviewed from microwaves to optics. In general, HMSs comprise a thin layer of orthogonal electric and magnetic dipoles, which form an array of Huygens’ sources. In a refraction setting, these sources radiate mostly in the forward direction and can be used to manipulate an incident electromagnetic wave at will. In the case of passive HMSs, the Huygens’ sources are induced by an incident electromagnetic field. Examples of passive manipulations include reflectionless refraction, perfect anomalous reflection, and arbitrary antenna beam forming. In the case of active HMSs, the Huygens’ sources are impressed active sources. Active HMS manipulations include cloaking and subwavelength spot formation in a cavity environment.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.020

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.286 · 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