Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The recent announcement of an increase in government spending to allow the UK to join the European Southern Observatory (ESO; Physics Today, January 2001, page 25) may well have sent a shudder through the US affiliates of the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy. Is this announcement, following as it does proposals for a non-NATO European “rapid reaction” military force, another instance of growing isolationism between Europe and the US? Will it threaten the future of joint projects like the 8-meter Gemini telescopes, a collaborative effort of the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and South America? Actually, it underscores the need for greater cooperation, and is a clear signal that science is a global, rather than a national, pursuit.During science funding difficulties, the cry is often raised of national pride and the need to spend money on research to beat the competition. The UK has long realized that it cannot afford to fund major astronomy projects by itself, and has worked in various partnerships. That experience has been, on the whole, very positive. It has provided excellent observational facilities and has shown that added value can come from the resulting interaction among partners. This success is no news for particle physics, a field in which cost has essentially driven the most complex experiments to a single global site.It is the conflict between shared facilities and “national” science that may itself generate a problem. Does each nation try to use its shared facilities to steal a scientific advance on its partners? As the sheer scale of frontier experiment and observation increases, and time on such facilities becomes ever more expensive, we need a new approach. We must share the science, too.In astronomy, the next generation of large telescopes—the Atacama Large Millimeter Array and a proposed extremely large 50- to 100-meter optical/infrared telescope—must be global projects. Both the US and ESO are heavily involved, and that involvement necessitates stronger ties. But to capitalize on the great investment involved, will we be able to share the glory of the inevitable discoveries? Will the New York Times headlines declare “World Science Team Discovers …” or will it be “US Worried As UK/European ‘Boffins’ Scoop Discovery”?Achieving a global aspect to science programs may well be difficult, even in good international partnerships. Satisfying reasonable national aspirations for observation time and still running major joint programs is not trivial. The US has experienced such problems in the rather uneasy atmosphere generated by variable community access to national and privately-funded observatories. Large joint international observing programs have a reputation for inefficient use of telescope time, and innovative thinking is needed to allocate this scarce resource effectively and equitably.Perhaps it’s just a shift of credit that will be needed. We scientists (and the funding governments) need to be prepared to acknowledge and accept success for the global project itself, an accolade for all the partners rather than individuals. In big projects we will need to share, rather than grab, success. Science itself knows no regional or national barriers. Neither should our pursuit of it.© 2001 American Institute of Physics.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».