MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909983492 · doi:10.3390/app9020298

A Review of Recent Results on Simultaneous Interrogation of Multiple Fiber Bragg Grating-Based Sensors Using Microwave Photonics

2019· review· en· W2909983492 on OpenAlexafffund
Lawrence R. Chen, Maria-Iulia Comanici, Parisa Moslemi, Jingjing Hu, Peter Küng

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Fiber Optic Sensors
Canadian institutionsQPS Photronics (Canada)McGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFiber Bragg gratingMaterials scienceMicrowavePulse compressionInterrogationOpticsPhotonicsSIGNAL (programming language)WavelengthFiber optic sensorOptoelectronicsOptical fiberComputer sciencePhysicsTelecommunicationsRadar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We review recent results on exploiting microwave photonics to enable simultaneous interrogation of multiple fiber Bragg grating (FBG)-based sensors. In particular, we describe the use of (1) microwave photonic filtering and (2) chirped microwave pulse generation and compression as a means to map the wavelength (spectral) changes in the response of FBG-based sensors (specifically, an in-fiber Fabry-Pérot cavity sensor based on FBGs, FBG sensors directly, and a linearly chirped FBG sensor) to applied temperature (or strain) to the power of a radio-frequency signal (i.e., a wavelength-to-power mapping) or to the correlation peak of the compressed microwave signal. The approaches support high-resolution and high-speed interrogation and can be suitable for large scale sensing networks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicAdvanced Fiber Optic SensorsFrench-language works237,207