MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159322315 · doi:10.1364/oe.422764

Suspended germanium waveguides with subwavelength-grating metamaterial cladding for the mid-infrared band

2021· article· en· W3159322315 on OpenAlexaff
Alejandro Sánchez‐Postigo, Alejandro Ortega‐Moñux, Jordi Soler Penadés, Ahmed Osman, Miloš Nedeljković, Zhibo Qu, Yangbo Wu, Íñigo Molina‐Fernández, Pavel Cheben, Goran Z. Mashanovich, J. Gonzalo Wangüemert‐Pérez

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersJunta de AndalucíaEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y UniversidadesConsejería de Economía, Conocimiento, Empresas y Universidad, Junta de AndalucíaUniversidad de Málaga
KeywordsGermaniumMaterials scienceCladding (metalworking)OpticsOptoelectronicsInfraredMetamaterialGratingFabricationWavelengthPhotonicsPhysicsSilicon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, sensing and communication applications have fueled important developments of group-IV photonics in the mid-infrared band. In the long-wave range, most platforms are based on germanium, which is transparent up to ∼15-µm wavelength. However, those platforms are limited by the intrinsic losses of complementary materials or require complex fabrication processes. To overcome these limitations, we propose suspended germanium waveguides with a subwavelength metamaterial lateral cladding that simultaneously provides optical confinement and allows structural suspension. These all-germanium waveguides can be fabricated in one dry and one wet etch step. A propagation loss of 5.3 dB/cm is measured at a wavelength of 7.7 µm. These results open the door for the development of integrated devices that can be fabricated in a simple manner and can potentially cover the mid-infrared band up to ∼15 µm.

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 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 score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.214 · 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.

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

Citations38
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207