Quantitative measurement of birefringence in transparent films across the visible spectrum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Common transparent polymer films such as cellophane and household tape are frequently used as examples of birefringent materials in textbooks and classroom demonstrations. Qualitatively, birefringence is often demonstrated by layering such films between crossed-polarizers. In this work, we describe an inexpensive experimental setup for the quantitative measurement of birefringence in common household films, suitable for senior high school or undergraduate labs. Whereas traditional approaches for polarization-based classroom experiments typically use monochromatic laser light, we encourage the combined use of an incoherent incandescent light source and portable spectrometer. In addition, we demonstrate how any concomitant thin-film interference effects can be used to separately measure the optical thickness in the most heterogeneous and uniform films. Such measurement can then be used as an independent experimental confirmation of either the film's index of refraction or its thickness, given knowledge of the other. In an effort to provide examples for the data analysis procedures as well as to investigate a range of materials, we measure the birefringence across the visible spectrum of six common household polymer films, including thin kitchen wrap, cellophane, gift basket film, and common adhesive tapes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".