Figure data for "Self-emergence of robust solitons in a micro-cavity"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Figure data for "Self-emergence of robust solitons in a micro-cavity" Maxwell Rowley1, Pierre-Henry Hanzard1, Antonio Cutrona1,2, Hualong Bao1, Sai T. Chu3, Brent E. Little4, Roberto Morandotti5, David J. Moss6, Gian-Luca Oppo7, Juan Sebastian Totero Gongora1,2, Marco Peccianti1,2 and Alessia Pasquazi1,2,* 1 Emergent Photonics (Epic) Lab, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sussex, BN1 9QH, UK 2 Emergent Photonics Research Centre, Dept. of Physics, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU 3 Department of Physics, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Hong Kong, China SAR 4 State Key Laboratory of Transient Optics and Photonics, Xi'an Institute of Optics and Precision Mechanics, CAS, Xi'an, China 5 INRS-EMT, 1650 Boulevard Lionel-Boulet, Varennes, Québec, Canada J3X 1S2 6 Optical Sciences Centre, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia 7 SUPA, Department of Physics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, UK *a.pasquazi@sussex.ac.uk Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04957-x Acknowledgements We acknowledge the support of the EPSRC, Industrial Innovation Fellowship Programme, under grant no. EP/S001018/1, the UK Canada Quantum Technology Programme and Innovate UK (IUK project nos. 77087 and 10004412). This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme grant agreement no. 851758 (TELSCOMBE). A.C. acknowledges the support of the DSTL-Defence Science & Technology Laboratory through the studentship DSTLX1000142078. J.S.T.G. acknowledges the Leverhulme Trust (Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship grant no. ECF-2020-537). R.M. acknowledges funding by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) through the joint UK Canada Quantum Technology Programme, and by the Canada Research Chair Program. B.E.L. acknowledges support from the Strategic Priority Research Programme of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (grant no. XDB24030300). We are indebted to L. Peters, L. Olivieri and A. Bendahmane for enlightening discussions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.603 | 0.155 |
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".