MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Linear optical fibre and signal degradation

2013· book-chapter· en· W827416028 on OpenAlexaff
Marek S. Wartak

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDegradation (telecommunications)SIGNAL (programming language)Refractive indexMaterials scienceField (mathematics)Optical fiberOpticsComputer scienceMathematicsPhysicsOptoelectronicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this chapter we will discuss properties of the linear fibre, where refractive index does not depend on field intensity. We will concentrate on the following topics: • geometrical-optics description • wave propagation • dispersion in single-mode fibres • dispersion-induced limitations. Due to dispersion, the width of propagating pulse will increase. In multimode fibres, broadening of optical pulses is significant, about 10 ns km −1 . In the geometrical-optics description, such broadening is attributed to different paths followed by different rays. In a single mode fibre, intermodal dispersion is absent; all energy is transported by a single mode. However, pulse broadening exists. Different spectral components of the pulse travel at slightly different group velocities. This effect is known as group velocity dispersion (GVD). Geometrical-optics description Consider an optical fibre whose cross-section is shown in Fig. 5.1. The corresponding change in refractive index profiles is shown in Fig. 5.2. We illustrate two profiles: step index and graded index. In the following discussion we will assume validity of a geometrical optics description which holds in the limit λ ≪ a , where λ is the light wavelength, and a is the core radius [1], [2]. Numerical aperture (NA) To start our discussion, consider the propagation of rays entering a cylindrical fibre at different angles in the plane passing through the core centre, see Fig. 5.3. Ray B will travel in the cladding region and it is known as an unguided ray, whereas ray A will stay within core region, and it will form a guided ray.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicOptical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207