MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000718571 · doi:10.1364/prj.8.000127

Erbium-doped TeO<sub>2</sub>-coated Si<sub>3</sub>N<sub>4</sub> waveguide amplifiers with 5  dB net gain

2020· article· en· W3000718571 on OpenAlexafffund
Henry C. Frankis, Hamidu M. Mbonde, Dawson B. Bonneville, Chenglin Zhang, Richard Mateman, Arne Leinse, Jonathan D. B. Bradley

Bibliographic record

VenuePhotonics Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsMaterials scienceErbiumWaveguideAnalytical Chemistry (journal)DopingOptoelectronicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We demonstrate 5 dB net gain in an erbium-doped tellurium-oxide-coated silicon nitride waveguide. The amplifier design leverages the high refractive index and high gain in erbium-doped tellurite glass as well as the ultra-low losses and mature, reliable, and low-cost fabrication methods of silicon nitride waveguide technology. We show that the waveguide platform demonstrates low background propagation losses of 0.25 dB/cm based on a ring resonator device with a Q factor of 1.3 × 10 6 at 1640 nm. We measure 5 dB peak net gain at 1558 nm and > 3 dB of net gain across the C band in a 6.7 cm long waveguide for 35 mW of launched 1470 nm pump power. Gain per unit length of 1.7 and 1.4 dB/cm is measured in a 2.2 cm long waveguide for 970 and 1470 nm pump wavelengths, respectively. Amplifier simulations predict that > 10 dB gain can be achieved across the C band simply by optimizing waveguide length and fiber-chip coupling. These results demonstrate a promising approach for the monolithic integration of compact erbium-doped waveguide amplifiers on silicon nitride chips and within silicon-based photonic integrated circuits.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations77
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhotonics ResearchSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207