MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911454361 · doi:10.1364/oe.27.002488

Spatially resolved cross-sectional refractive index profile of fs laser–written waveguides using a genetic algorithm

2019· article· en· W2911454361 on OpenAlexafffund
Antoine Drouin, Pierre Lorre, Jean-Sébastien Boisvert, Sébastien Loranger, Victor Lambin Iezzi, Raman Kashyap

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOpticsLaserInterferometryRefractive indexFemtosecondWaveguideMaterials scienceMach–Zehnder interferometerRefractive index profileMeasure (data warehouse)PhotonicsPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laser-written waveguides in glass have many potential applications as photonic devices. However, there is little knowledge of the actual profile of the usually asymmetric refractive index (RI) change across the femtosecond (fs) laser-written waveguides. We show, here, a new nondestructive method to measure any symmetric or asymmetric two-dimensional RI profile of fs laser-written waveguides in transparent materials. The method is also suitable for the measurement of the RI profile of any other type of waveguide. A Mach-Zehnder interferometer is used to obtain the phase shift of light propagating transversely through the RI-modified region. A genetic algorithm is then used to determine the matching cross-sectional RI profile based on the known waveguide shape and dimensions. A validation of the method with the comparison to a RNF measurement of the industry-standard SMF-28 is presented, as well as a demonstration of its versatility with measurements on fs laser-written 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.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207