MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289529413 · doi:10.3390/s22155722

Optical Fiber Sensors for High-Temperature Monitoring: A Review

2022· review· en· W4289529413 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Fiber Optic Sensors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaNational Research Council Canada
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Shandong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaShandong University
KeywordsOptical fiberAerospaceFiber optic sensorTemperature measurementMaterials scienceElectromagnetic interferenceMultiplexingFiberInterference (communication)OptoelectronicsElectrical engineeringElectronic engineeringEngineeringAerospace engineeringTelecommunicationsComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-temperature measurements above 1000 °C are critical in harsh environments such as aerospace, metallurgy, fossil fuel, and power production. Fiber-optic high-temperature sensors are gradually replacing traditional electronic sensors due to their small size, resistance to electromagnetic interference, remote detection, multiplexing, and distributed measurement advantages. This paper reviews the sensing principle, structural design, and temperature measurement performance of fiber-optic high-temperature sensors, as well as recent significant progress in the transition of sensing solutions from glass to crystal fiber. Finally, future prospects and challenges in developing fiber-optic high-temperature sensors are also discussed.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.269 · 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