Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the circular polarization of electromagnetic waves is well known from its poplar definition, its handedness is not uniquely defined, even with given phase convention, observer location and phase difference. For example a circular polarization Ex+jEz (j=sqrt(-1)) traveling along y axis has opposite handedness of the polarization to Ex+jEy traveling in z axis, counter-intuitively. This cannot be explained by the conventional definition, due to the lack of clarity of the definition. In general, when there are two orthogonally linearly-polarized plane waves, say E1 and E2, choice of the reference wave to be E1 or E2 and application of the phase difference to the other wave are ambiguous. This causes confusions and sometimes contradictory results at least in simulations. This paper suggests the necessary and sufficient conditions with the help of the propagation vector and magnetic fields to define uniquely the handedness of a circular or elliptical polarization and thus a desired handedness can be correctly injected in a simulation. The newly proposed triad is added to the conventional definition for easy determining the handedness. The unique handedness of a circular polarization is critical in design, simulation, quantification of polarization-sensitive nanophotonics devices where wave can travel in 4π space along any arbitrary direction.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".