MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1888820952 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3879

A REVIEW OF MINING TECHNOLOGIES FOR SPACE

2011· review· en· W1888820952 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hemanth Satish, Peter Radziszewski, Jacques Ouellet

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)HumanityPlanetUnit (ring theory)Computer scienceData sciencePolitical scienceMathematicsPhysicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is a truism that if humanity wants to expand its horizons to Moon and other planets the area of mining in space has to go along. In the present paper a brief review of literature in terms of different mine unit operations is undertaken. The present paper gives a quick outlook as to where we stand in terms of technologies, which can be applied to space mining applicaions

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207