Comparative study between the standard type I and the type A femtosecond laser induced refractive index change in silver containing glasses
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
The femtosecond direct laser writing technique in glasses has been widely used and extensively studied during the last two decades. This technique provides a robust and efficient way to directly inscribe embedded 3D photonic devices in bulk glasses. Following direct laser writing, a local refractive index change (Δn) is induced that is generally classified under three distinguished types (type I, type II & type III). Each type allows for the fabrication of its own variety of 3D photonic components. However, in silver containing glasses, direct laser writing induces the creation of a new type of refractive index change, called type Argentum (type A). It is based on the creation of silver clusters that allow for the creation of optical waveguides. In this paper, we report that both type I and type Argentum modifications could be triggered in silver containing glasses by finely choosing the inscription parameters. A comparative study between both types of single mode waveguides is presented taking into account the morphology, Δn profile and the guided mode profile. Finally, we highlight the originality of type Argentum waveguides paving the way for promising applications not accessible by type I 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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