MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235429669 · doi:10.1063/1.4808474

Tuning in to dye laser origins

2007· article· en· W4235429669 on OpenAlexaff
Richard G. Brewer, A. Mooradian, B. P. Stoicheff

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Today · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPhotochemistry and Electron Transfer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaserDye laserMaterials scienceGratingOpticsRhodamine 6GOptoelectronicsTunable laserNarrowbandDistributed feedback laserMonochromatic colorWavelengthFluorescencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brewer, Mooradian, and Stoicheff reply: We attributed the first demonstration of laser emission in organic dyes to the two independent work groups led by Peter Sorokin and Fritz Schäfer (reference 7 in our article).We also erroneously attributed tunability to them. Although Schäfer and coauthors noted that the laser wavelength of each dye was tunable over a great part of its fluorescence band with changing dye concentration, that was not the narrowband tunability suitable for sweeping over an atomic or molecular spectrum. Indeed, Bernard Soffer and B. B. McFarland first showed that pulsed dye laser radiation could be tuned with a reflective diffraction grating at one end of the laser cavity; that generally more useful method provided tuning over 400 Å in rhodamine 6G with the requisite narrow output of 0.6 Å (50 GHz).Later, others replaced the grating with an echelon or Lyot filter to generate much narrower output. However, the technique used most frequently for precision spectroscopy was the extremely monochromatic (MHz) and tunable dye laser emission produced by using the grating at grazing incidence, a method still in use. Also, continuous-wave and broadly tunable dye lasers with linewidths as low as 50 kHz have been observed by frequency-offset locking the dye frequency to a stable reference.Currently, broad tunability in the near-IR and visible regions with narrow linewidths between 50 and 300 kHz is obtained with a continuous-wave diode laser—a semiconductor chip—using an external cavity that consists of a diffraction grating and a retroreflector. Resolution of this magnitude has permitted precision measurements in fundamental investigations.© 2007 American Institute of Physics.

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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics TodaySame topicPhotochemistry and Electron Transfer StudiesFrench-language works237,207