MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409104992 · doi:10.1103/physreva.111.043502

Precision gyroscope from the helicity of light

2025· article· en· W4409104992 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael A. Fedderke, Roni Harnik, David E. Kaplan, Sam Posen, Surjeet Rajendran, Francesco Serra, Vyacheslav Yakovlev

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysics and Sensor Technology
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersOffice of ScienceInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueNational Science FoundationGovernment of CanadaU.S. Department of EnergyMinistry of Colleges and Universities
KeywordsHelicityGyroscopePhysicsParticle physicsComputer scienceQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a gyroscope that measures rotation based on the effects of the rotation on the polarization of light. Rotation induces a differential phase shift in the propagation of left- and right-circularly polarized light and this phase shift can be measured in suitably designed interferometric setups. The signal in this setup is independent of the frequency of light, unlike various sources of noise such as vibrations, which cause phase shifts that depend on the frequency. Such vibrations are the practical limit on the sensitivity of conventional Sagnac-style optical interferometers that are typically used as gyroscopes. In the proposed setup, one can potentially mitigate this source of noise by simultaneously using two (or more) sources of light that have different frequencies. The signal in this setup scales with the total storage time of the light. Due to its frequency independence, it is thus most optimal to measure the signal using superconducting radio-frequency systems where the high finesse of the available cavities enables considerably longer storage times than is possible in an optical setup.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicGeophysics and Sensor TechnologyFrench-language works237,207