MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W53972417

Report from ILEWG and Cape Canaveral Lunar Declaration 2008

2009· article· en· W53972417 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
B. H. Foing

Notice bibliographique

RevueEGUGA · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePhysics and Astronomy
ThématiqueSpace exploration and regulation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCharterDeclarationCommittee on Space ResearchPolitical scienceSpace (punctuation)Work (physics)Public relationsEngineeringComputer scienceLawAstrobiology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

We shall report on the ILEWG charter, goals and activities, on ICEUM “lunar declarations” and follow-up activities, with focus on societal questions, and the Cape Canaveral Lunar Declaration 2008. ILEWG charter: ILEWG , the International Lunar Exploration Working Group is a public forum created in 1994, sponsored by the world’s space agencies to support cooperation towards a world strategy for the exploration and utilization of the Moon our natural satellite. The charter of ILEWG is: To develop an international strategy for the exploration of the Moon To establish a forum and mechanisms for the communication and coordination of activities To implement international coordination and cooperation In order to facilitate communication among all interested parties ILEWG agrees to establish an electronic communication network for exchange of science, technology and programmatic information related to lunar activities ILEWG meets regularly, at least, once a year, and leads the organization of an International Conference in order to discuss the state of lunar exploration. Formal reports are given at COSPAR meetings and to space agencies. ILEWG is sponsored by the world’s space agencies and is intended to serve three relevant groups: actual members of the ILEWG, ie delegates and repre-sentatives of the participating Space Agencies and organizations allowing them to discuss and possibly harmonize their draft concepts and plans team members of the relevant space projects allowing them to coordinate their internal work according to the guidelines provided by the Charter of the ILEWG members of the general public and of the Lunar Explorer’s Society who are interested and wish to be informed on the progress of the Moon projects and possibly contribute their own ideas ILEWG activities and working groups: ILEWG task groups include science, technology, human aspects, socio-economics, young explorers and outreach, programmatics, roadmaps and synergies with Mars exploration. Users can obtain information on how to participate, as well as details on the latest news and events regarding lunar exploration, forthcoming meetings, relevant reports and documents of importance for the work of the ILEWG, summary descriptions of current lunar exploration projects (such as SMART-1, Chang’E1, Selene, Chandrayaan-1, LRO, LCROSS) funded by various space agencies, and basic data on the Moon itself. Activities of the related space agencies and organizations can also be found. ILEWG has been organising International Conferences on Exploration and Utilisation of the Moon (ICEUM) since 1994, whose proceedings are published. It has also sponsored a number of activities, workshops, tasks groups and publications in collabora-tions with other organisations: COSPAR, space agencies, IAA, IAF, EGU (see references below). In accor-dance with its charter, ILEWG reports to COSPAR, and a summary was given at Montreal COSPAR2008 on ILEWG activities conducted since the previous COSPAR2006 assembly in Beijing. The recent ILEWG International Conference on Exploration and Utilisation of the Moon, were held respectively in Udaipur, India (ICEUM6, 2004), in Toronto, Canada (ICEUM7, 2005), in Beijing (ICEUM8, 2006), Sorrento (ICEUM9, 2007) and Port Canaveral (ICEUM10/LEAG/SRR, 2008 in conjunction with the NASA Lunar Exploration Analysis Groups and Space Resources Roundtable annual meetings). We’ll report on the Cape Canaveral Lunar Declaration and on follow-up activities, in particular in coordination with space agencies, COSPAR and IAF. References: [1] 1st International Lunar Workshop, Balsiger H. et al., Editors, European Space Agency, 1994. ESA-SP-1170. [2] 2nd International Lunar Workshop, Kyoto, H. Mizutani, editor, Japan Space Forum Publisher, 1997. [3] 3rd International Lunar Workshop, Moscow 1998, E. Galimov, editor. [4] ICEUM4, ESTEC, 2000, ESA SP-462, B.H. Foing & M. Perry, editors. [5] ICEUM5, Hawaii Nov 2003, Durst S.M. et al, Editors, Vol 108, 1-576 pp, Science and Technology Series, American Astronautical Society, 2004. [6] ICEUM6, Udaipur 2004, Bhandari N., Editor, Journal Earth System Science, India, 114, No6, Dec 2005, pp. 573-841. [7] ICEUM7, Toronto Sept 2005, sci.esa.int/ilewg. [8] ICEUM8, Beijing July 2006, Journal of Chinese Society of Astronautics, Vol. 28 Sup., 2007, Ji W., Editor. [9] ICEUM9, Sorrento, Italy, Foing B., Espinasse S., Kosters G., Editors. http://sci.esa.int/iceum9, Dec. 2007), [11] Ehrenfreund, P., Foing, B.H., Cellino, A. Editors, The Moon and Near Earth Objects, ASR Vol 37, 1, 2006. [12] Foing, B.H. et al editors, ’Astronomy and Space Science from the Moon’, ASR 14, 6, 1994. [13] Foing, B.H. et al, editor, Lunar Exploration, Planetary and Space Science, Vol 50, 14-15, 2002. [14] Foing, B.H., Heather, D. editors, ’Lunar Exploration 2000’, ASR Vol 30, Nr 8, 2002. [15] Hunt-ress, W. et al ’The next steps in exploring deep space A cosmic study by the IAA’, Acta Astronautica, Vol 58, Issues 6-7, 2006, p302-377. [16] Ip W.-H., Foing, B.H., Masson Ph.L., editors, The Moon and Mars, ASR Vol 23, 11, 1999.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,150
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,310

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,235
Écart entre enseignants0,223 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEGUGAMême sujetSpace exploration and regulationTravaux en français237 207