MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005277533 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2020.2972021

High-Efficiency Random Fiber Laser Based on Strong Random Fiber Grating for MHz Ultrasonic Sensing

2020· article· en· W3005277533 on OpenAlexafffund
Liang Zhang, Ping Lü, Zichao Zhou, Yuan Wang, Stephen J. Mihailov, Liang Chen, Xiaoyi Bao

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRandom lasers and scattering media
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMaterials scienceFiber Bragg gratingOpticsFiber laserLaser linewidthUltrasonic sensorLasing thresholdOptical fiberOptoelectronicsLaserAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An Erbium-gain random fiber laser based on a strong random fiber grating (RFG) is experimentally demonstrated and applied to MHz ultrasound wave detection. The strong RFG with up to −10 dB reflectivity as well as a highly-doped Erbium doped fiber (HD-EDF) enabled a highly efficient random laser radiation with 1-kHz narrow linewidth. With the RFG as the feedback and the sensing head, both burst and continuous ultrasonic signals of up to 8 MHz can be demodulated by dynamics analysis from the random lasing emission. Results show that the detected signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 5.1 MHz ultrasound signal remains larger than 43 dB. The proposed random fiber laser sensor provides a broad ultrasonic bandwidth, high sensitivity, simple structure, low cost and robustness to the harsh environment, suggesting prospective applications for ultrasonic wave-associated acoustic emission (AE) detection in structure health monitoring and biomedical diagnosis.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicRandom lasers and scattering mediaFrench-language works237,207