MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006421862 · doi:10.1088/1361-6501/ab7611

Packaging and precision testing of fiber-Bragg-grating and silicon ring-resonator thermometers: current status and challenges

2020· article· en· W3006421862 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sergey Dedyulin, A. D. W. Todd, Siegfried Janz, Dan‐Xia Xu, Shurui Wang, Martin Vachon, John Weber

Bibliographic record

VenueMeasurement Science and Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiber Bragg gratingMaterials scienceCurrent (fluid)ResonatorOpticsOptoelectronicsSiliconOptical fiberPhysicsElectrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In recent years photonic thermometers—temperature sensors based on optical frequency measurement which exploit the thermo-optic effect to translate thermal changes into frequency shifts—are gaining popularity as a possible alternative to their electrical counterparts: platinum resistance thermometers and thermocouples. In this work, we report our results of testing photonic thermometers based on silica fiber-Bragg-grating technology supplied by a commercial company, as well as preliminary testing results of a silicon ring-resonator thermometer developed at the National Research Council of Canada. The main purpose of showing these two examples is to highlight some of the challenges that need to be addressed if photonic thermometers are to replace thermocouples or platinum resistance thermometers in metrology laboratories and other environments where high accuracy and stability are required, namely the influence of packaging on the sensor’s performance and the need for rigorous testing to be done in a temperature metrology lab.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.175 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeasurement Science and TechnologySame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207