Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".