MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164574170 · doi:10.1364/ol.427104

Detailed balance limits for inversion in solar-pumped lasers and allied systems

2021· article· en· W3164574170 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew G. Flood, Nazir P. Kherani

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsOpticsLaserPhysicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Solar-pumped lasers and optical amplifiers continue to draw research interest with advances in nanomaterials science and technology. Establishing accurate detailed balance limits for inversion in these systems is essential. In this Letter, we re-examine the threshold limits for inversion in broadband-pumped lasers, with reference to those provided by Roxlo and Yablonvitch [ Opt. Lett. 8 , 271 ( 1983 ) OPLEDP 0146-9592 10.1364/OL.8.000271 ], where they determined the minimum Stokes shift and the minimum ratio of pump band to emission band absorption constants—based on independent consideration of the emission at pump and emission frequencies. In contrast, the derivation here simultaneously accounts for emission in both the pump and emission bands, which in turn leads to a single consolidated inequality that serves to establish the revised threshold requirements for inversion. Upon applying this new unified relationship to solar-pumped devices, a large increase in the minimum required Stokes shifts for 1-sun devices, particularly at larger pump energies and smaller ratios of α p 0 / α e 0 , is found. The maximum possible efficiencies of solar-pumped devices are calculated using this new relation.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics LettersSame topicLaser Design and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207