MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309757927 · doi:10.1364/oe.477102

Determination of the nonlinear thermo-optic coefficient of silicon nitride and oxide using an effective index method

2022· article· en· W4309757927 on OpenAlexaff
Karl Johnson, Naif Alshamrani, Dhaifallah Almutairi, Andrew Grieco, Cameron Horvath, Jocelyn N. Westwood‐Bachman, Alexandria McKinlay, Yeshaiahu Fainman

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsApplied Nanotools (Canada)
FundersArmy Research OfficeBasic Energy SciencesOffice of Naval ResearchDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyCymerNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMaterials scienceSilicon nitrideChemical vapor depositionPlasma-enhanced chemical vapor depositionRefractive indexSiliconResonatorSilicon oxideOpticsSilicon dioxideOptoelectronicsWavelengthWaveguideAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Composite materialChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is little literature characterizing the temperature-dependent thermo-optic coefficient (TOC) for low pressure chemical vapor deposition (LPCVD) silicon nitride or plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) silicon dioxide at temperatures above 300 K. In this study, we characterize these material TOC’s from approximately 300-460 K, yielding values of (2.51 ± 0.08) · 10 −5 K −1 for silicon nitride and (5.67 ± 0.53) · 10 −6 K −1 for silicon oxide at room temperature (300 K). We use a simplified experimental setup and apply an analytical technique to account for thermal expansion during the extraction process. We also show that the waveguide geometry and method used to determine the resonant wavelength have a substantial impact on the precision of our results, a fact which can be used to improve the precision of numerous ring resonator index sensing experiments.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207