Degree of polarization of luminescence from InP under SiN stripes: fits to FEM simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fits of 3D finite element method (FEM) simulations to the degree of polarization (DOP) of photoluminescence (PL) measured on facets under SiN stripes on InP substrates are presented. The measured data is low noise and the fits are remarkably good; lobes owing to defects (perhaps dislocations) can be seen in false colour maps of the residues from the least squares fits. It is found that the vast majority (estimated to be > 99%) of the DOP patterns can be attributed to an initial condition for the FEM simulations of biaxial strain in the SiN stripes. In addition to the fits of FEM simulations to the data and discussion of the fits: fits of error functions to PL data to find the resolution of the optical system and the location of the top surface, quantities that are required in fits of 3D FEM simulations to the data, are presented; as is presented some historical information on analysis of luminescent III-V materials and devices by analysis of the DOP of the luminescence, and some information on the dependence of the DOP of luminescence on strain for InP.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".