MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391326150 · doi:10.1063/5.0177603

Development and validation of a cryogenic far-infrared diffraction grating spectrometer used to post-disperse the output from a Fourier transform spectrometer

2024· article· en· W4391326150 on OpenAlexafffund
Alicia M. Anderson, David A. Naylor, Brad G. Gom, Matthew A. Buchan, Adam J. Christiansen, Ian Veenendaal

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicOptical Coatings and Gratings
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersCanada Foundation for InnovationCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of LethbridgeAlberta InnovatesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCMC Microsystems
KeywordsOpticsSpectrometerDiffraction efficiencyDiffractionDetectorDiffraction gratingGratingFourier transformFourier transform infrared spectroscopyPolarization (electrochemistry)Materials scienceBlazed gratingInfraredImaging spectrometerWavelengthPhysicsOptoelectronicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances in far-infrared detector technology have led to increases in raw sensitivity of more than an order of magnitude over previous state-of-the-art detectors. With such sensitivity, photon noise becomes the dominant noise component, even when using cryogenically cooled optics, unless a method of restricting the spectral bandpass is employed. The leading instrument concept features reflecting diffraction gratings, which post-disperse the light that has been modulated by a polarizing Fourier transform spectrometer (FTS) onto a detector array, thereby reducing the photon noise on each detector. This paper discusses the development of a cryogenic (4 K) diffraction grating spectrometer that operates over the wavelength range of 285 to 500 μm and was used to post-disperse the output from a room-temperature polarizing FTS. Measurements of the grating spectral response and diffraction efficiency are presented as a function of both wavelength and polarization to characterize the instrumental performance.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicOptical Coatings and GratingsFrench-language works237,207