MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3074456182 · doi:10.1364/ao.396028

Efficient framework for the examination of the field of view sensitivity of a field-widened birefringent interferometer

2020· article· en· W3074456182 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffery Langille, W. E. Ward, Tingyu Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Polarization and Ellipsometry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpticsBirefringenceInterferometryAstronomical interferometerZemaxPhysicsSensitivity (control systems)Field (mathematics)Interference (communication)Optical path lengthComputer scienceSoftwareTelecommunicationsElectronic engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An efficient approach is presented that allows the field of view sensitivities of a field-widened birefringent interferometer constructed from several stacked birefringent slabs to be examined. The approach utilizes a Jones matrix framework that is valid for birefringent slabs that have their optic axis parallel to the surface of the slab. It neglects Fresnel effects and multiple reflections, but accounts for birefringent splitting and does not neglect higher-order angular effects. The simplified approach allows the angular sensitivity of the optical path difference near the field-widened configuration to be examined in the presence of misalignment and mismatches between the components. Understanding these effects is critical to developing wide-field interferometers that can be utilized for imaging purposes. Here, we present the developed framework and apply it to examine the field of view effects of a three-element field-widened static birefringent interferometer that is being developed for the measurement of upper atmospheric winds. We examine the sensitivity of the device to rotational misalignment, mismatches, and wavelength shifts. Comparisons among the modeled interference fringes, output from Zemax optical design software, and lab observations are used to validate the approach. It is also shown that the approach accurately simulates parasitic fringes associated with unwanted coupling between extraordinary and ordinary waves at the interfaces.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicOptical Polarization and EllipsometryFrench-language works237,207