MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129409897 · doi:10.3390/s21041454

Fiber Bragg Grating Wavelength Drift in Long-Term High Temperature Annealing

2021· review· en· W3129409897 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Grobnic, Cyril Hnatovsky, Sergey Dedyulin, Robert B. Walker, Huimin Ding, Stephen J. Mihailov

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Fiber Optic Sensors
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiber Bragg gratingMaterials scienceWavelengthTemperature measurementAtmospheric temperature rangeOptoelectronicsOpticsThermocoupleAnnealing (glass)SurvivabilityOptical fiberComputer sciencePhysicsMeteorologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-temperature-resistant fiber Bragg gratings (FBGs) are the main competitors to thermocouples as sensors in applications for high temperature environments defined as being in the 600-1200 °C temperature range. Due to their small size, capacity to be multiplexed into high density distributed sensor arrays and survivability in extreme ambient temperatures, they could provide the essential sensing support that is needed in high temperature processes. While capable of providing reliable sensing information in the short term, their long-term functionality is affected by the drift of the characteristic Bragg wavelength or resonance that is used to derive the temperature. A number of physical processes have been proposed as the cause of the high temperature wavelength drift but there is yet no credible description of this process. In this paper we review the literature related to the long-term wavelength drift of FBGs at high temperature and provide our recent results of more than 4000 h of high temperature testing in the 900-1000 °C range. We identify the major components of the high temperature wavelength drift and we propose mechanisms that could be causing them.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations63
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicAdvanced Fiber Optic SensorsFrench-language works237,207