MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198996177 · doi:10.1364/oe.441217

All-optical enhancement of minimum detectable perturbation in intensity-based fiber sensors

2021· article· en· W3198996177 on OpenAlexafffund
Benoit Vanus, Chams Baker, Liang Chen, Xiaoyi Bao

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Fiber Optic Sensors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsIntensity modulationOpticsSidebandFiber optic sensorLight intensityIntensity (physics)Phase modulationOptical fiberModulation (music)Optical powerPhysicsPerturbation (astronomy)Materials sciencePhase noiseAcousticsLaserMicrowave

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a novel optical signal processing scheme for enhancing the minimum detectable environmental perturbation of intensity-based fiber sensors. The light intensity is first stabilized by inducing a sinusoidal intensity modulation and extracting the first-order sideband generated by self-phase modulation (SPM) in a nonlinear medium. The light with stabilized intensity is then sent through a sensor and the sensor induced power variation is magnified by first inducing a sinusoidal intensity modulation, then undergoing SPM, and finally extracting a higher-order sideband. The advantage of the proposed stabilization-magnification (SM) sensing scheme is experimentally demonstrated by applying a damped vibration on an intensity-based fiber sensor and comparing the minimum detectable strain value of the proposed scheme with that of a conventional sensing scheme. Experimental results demonstrate minimum detectable strain improvement by a factor of 3.93. This new SM sensing scheme allows for the detection of perturbations originally too weak to be detected by a given intensity-based fiber sensor, which will be beneficial for a variety of applications such as high frequency ultra-sound detection.

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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.233
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

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicAdvanced Fiber Optic SensorsFrench-language works237,207