MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121224185 · doi:10.1002/047134608x.w2028.pub2

Pulse Compression in Parametric Amplification

2018· other· en· W3121224185 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Matter Interactions and Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChirpPulse compressionOpticsUltrashort pulseBandwidth-limited pulsePhysicsTime domainPulse (music)Parametric statisticsFrequency domainOptical parametric amplifierBandwidth (computing)Phase modulationMathematicsTelecommunicationsComputer scienceOptical amplifierMathematical analysisLaserPhase noise

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article presents some of the phenomena associated with second‐order nonlinearities that can be exploited for pulse compression. This includes not only the optical pulse compression in second harmonic generation and parametric amplification, but also giant phase modulation leading to pulse compression in dispersive structures. The large bandwidth associated with ultrashort pulses and pulses with large phase modulation requires a theoretical treatment in the frequency domain, instead of considering the equations in the time domain with frequency‐dependent parameters. Our treatment in the frequency domain takes into account Sellmeier equations for the frequency dependence of the index of refraction, instead of a series expansion to first or second order. We also discuss applications in ultrashort pulse diagnostic and in predicting the autostabilization of optical parametric oscillators against cavity length fluctuations, by controlling the chirp of the pump and signal pulses.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.219 · 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