Toward low-loss mid-infrared Ga2O3–BaO–GeO2 optical fibers
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
Abstract The development of efficient and compact photonic systems in support of mid-infrared integrated optics is currently facing several challenges. To date, most mid-infrared glass-based devices are employing fluoride or chalcogenide glasses (FCGs). Although the commercialization of FCGs-based optical devices has rapidly grown during the last decade, their development is rather cumbersome due to either poor crystallization and hygroscopicity resilience or poor mechanical-thermal properties of the FCGs. To overcome these issues, the parallel development of heavy-metal oxide optical fiber from the barium-germanium-gallium oxide vitreous system (BGG) has revealed a promising alternative. However, over 30 years of fiber fabrication optimization, the final missing step of drawing BGG fibers with acceptable losses for meters-long active and passive optical devices had not yet been reached. In this article, we first identify the three most important factors that prevent the fabrication of low-loss BGG fibers i.e., surface quality, volumic striae and glass thermal-darkening. Each of the three factors is then addressed in setting up a protocol enabling the fabrication of low-loss optical fibers from gallium-rich BGG glass compositions. Accordingly, to the best of our knowledge, we report the lowest losses ever measured in a BGG glass fiber i.e., down to 200 dB km −1 at 1350 nm.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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