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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.017
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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