MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2957148388 · doi:10.1109/lpt.2019.2927323

Post-Fabrication Trimming of Silicon Ring Resonators via Integrated Annealing

2019· article· en· W2957148388 on OpenAlexafffund
David E. Hagan, Benjamin Torres-Kulik, Andrew P. Knights

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Photonics Technology Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCMC Microsystems
KeywordsTrimmingFabricationAnnealing (glass)Materials scienceResonatorSiliconOptical ring resonatorsOptoelectronicsElectronic engineeringComposite materialEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report post-fabrication trimming of silicon-oninsulator micro-ring resonators via annealing of lattice defects using integrated micro-heaters. Defects are introduced via an inert MeV boron ion implantation at doses ranging from 3×10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">10</sup> to 3 × 10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">13</sup> cm <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">-2</sup> . Ion implantation results in a stable redshift ranging from 20 to 1200 pm, for the stated dose range. Post-implantation annealing produces a subsequent blue-shift ranging from 380 to 800 pm, dependent on the implantation dose, indicating partial recovery of the silicon lattice through removal of the implantation-induced defects. Moreover, evidence is shown for a resonance blue-shift associated with modification of the micro-ring, even without a prior ion implantation step. With the method described in this letter, we demonstrate precise trimming of a four-ring filter such that the resonances are separated by 50 GHz, despite the as-fabricated rings having a random resonance separation resulting from fabrication variances.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.867

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Photonics Technology LettersSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207