MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391430611 · doi:10.3390/micro4010006

A Method for Directly Observing Mechanical Oscillations in Photonic Structures Based on Porous Silicon Nanostructures

2024· article· en· W4391430611 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Toledo-Solano, H. H. Cerecedo-Núñez, Martha Alicia Palomino Ovando, Jocelyn Faubert, Khashayar Misaghian, J. E. Lugo

Bibliographic record

VenueMicro · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMechanical and Optical Resonators
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsPorous siliconMaterials sciencePhotonicsNanostructureSiliconNanotechnologyOptoelectronicsSilicon photonicsPorosityComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to their unique properties, porous silicon nanostructures have garnered much attention in photonics. For example, these structures can exhibit photoluminescence and are highly efficient in trapping light, making them ideal for applications such as biosensors, optical communication, and solar cells. The production of electromagnetic forces by light is a well-established concept, and the mechanism behind it is well-understood. In the past, we have used these forces to induce mechanical oscillations in a photonic structure based on porous silicon. Usually, to detect the oscillations, a high-precision vibrometer is utilized. However, we report a novel approach to visualizing photonic structure oscillations here. The traditional method of using a vibrometer as an indirect measurement tool has been replaced by one that involves directly observing the changes using a camera, digital movement amplification, a theoretical approximation, and FDTE simulations. This original technique provides researchers with a less expensive means of studying photonic structure movements. This proposal could be extended to other microscopic movements or for dynamical interferometric fringe analysis.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroSame topicMechanical and Optical ResonatorsFrench-language works237,207