MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High-quality-factor Optical Microresonators Fabricated on Lithium Niobite Thin Film with an Electro-optical Tuning Range Spanning Over One Free Spectral Range

2020· preprint· en· W3046181352 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhe Wang, Chaohua Wu, Zhiwei Fang, Min Wang, Jintian Lin, Rongbo Wu, Jianhao Zhang, Jianping Yu, Miao Wu, Wei Chu, Tao Lu, Gang Chen, Ya Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesScience and Technology Commission of Shanghai MunicipalityShanghai Rising-Star ProgramNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEast China Normal UniversityChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFree spectral rangePhotolithographyMaterials scienceLithium niobateResonatorQ factorEtching (microfabrication)OptoelectronicsThin filmLithium (medication)Range (aeronautics)OpticsNanotechnologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We demonstrate high quality (intrinsic Q factor ~2.8×106) racetrack microresonators fabricated on lithium niobate (LN) thin film with a free spectral range (FSR) of ~86.38 pm. By integrating microelectrodes alongside the two straight arms of the racetrack resonator, the resonance wavelength around the 1550 nm can be red shifted by 92 pm when the electric voltage is raised from -100 V to 100 V. The microresonators of the tuning range spanning over a full FSR is fabricated using photolithography assisted chemo-mechanical etching (photolithography assisted chemo-mechanical etching, PLACE).

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207