Optical Fiber Sensors in Extreme Temperature and Radiation Environments: A Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comprehensive review of optical fiber sensors (OFSs), including FBG, distributed optical fiber sensor and Fabry-Perot interferometer, and their applications within harsh environments, which include extremely high temperatures (from 275 °C to 1750 °C) and low temperatures (from −271.15 °C to −40 °C, namely cryogenic conditions: from 2 K to 233.15 K), and high levels of ionizing radiation (with a maximum gamma dose up to 2 GGy, and a maximum neutron fluence of approximately <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$5 \times 10^{19}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> n/cm <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> ). After a brief introduction of the principles of OFSs and mechanisms of interrogation, this paper focuses on the existing works for the above three operating environments. Attention have been paid to material selection for fabricating fibers, effects of doping with rare earth elements, femtosecond laser engraving, pre-processing and post-processing (i.e., annealing) that are employed to overcome issues faced byOFSs in extreme temperatures and radiation environments. Application examples and practical test cases are also presented. Through these examples, the limitations in the current state-of-the-art are acknowledged and the key problems are identified. Potential solutions to some of these problems are also elucidated. A feature of this paper is the amalgamation of many research methodologies and outcomes in three seemingly distinct environmental conditions in one place so that different solution techniques can be integrated to advance OFS technologies, especially for extreme environment applications.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it