Comparative study of quantitative phase imaging techniques for refractometry of optical waveguides
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 comparative study of quantitative phase imaging techniques for refractometry of optical waveguides is presented. Three techniques were examined: a method based on the transport-of-intensity equation, quadri-wave lateral shearing interferometry and digital holographic microscopy. The refractive index profile of a SMF-28 optical fiber was thoroughly characterized and served as a gold standard to assess the accuracy and precision of the phase imaging methods. Optical waveguides were inscribed in an Eagle2000 glass chip using a femtosecond laser and used to evaluate the sensitivity limit of these phase imaging approaches. It is shown that all three techniques provide accurate, repeatable and sensitive refractive index measurements. Using these phase imaging methods, we report a comprehensive map of the photosensitivity to femtosecond pulses of Eagle2000 glass. Finally, the reported data suggests that the phase imaging techniques are suited to be used as precise and non-destructive refractive index shift measuring tools to study and control the inscription process of optical waveguides.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it