MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210491639 · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-05366-w

Photosensitization agents for fs laser writing in PDMS

2022· article· en· W4210491639 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean-Sébastien Boisvert, A. R. Hlil, Sébastien Loranger, Ali Riaz, Yannick Ledemi, Younès Messaddeq, Raman Kashyap

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesMcGill UniversityCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationCanada Research ChairsGovernment of Canada
KeywordsPhotosensitivityBenzophenonePolydimethylsiloxaneMaterials scienceLaserRefractive indexPhotonicsOptoelectronicsIrradiationOpticsNanotechnologyPolymer chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study aims at identifying compounds incorporated into Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) which produce large refractive index change under fs laser exposition, potentially leading to optimal writing of waveguides or photonic devices in such a soft host. Germanium derivative, titania and zirconite derivatives, benzophenone (Bp), irgacure-184/500/1173 and 2959 are investigated. We show a mapping of the RI index change relative to the writing speed (1 to 40 mm/s), the repetition rate (606 to 101 kHz) and the number of passes (1 to 8) from which we establish quantitative parameters to allow the comparison between samples. We show that the organic materials, especially irgacure-184 and benzophenone yield a significantly higher maximum refractive index change in the order of 10 −2 . We also show that the strongest photosensitivity is achieved with a mixture of organic/organo-metallic material of Bp + Ge. We report a synergetic effect on photosensitivity of this novel mixture.

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)0.001
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.239
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207