MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976529005 · doi:10.1109/aero.2007.352982

The James Webb Space Telescope Experience: A Lifecycle Approach To Ground Support Equipment

2007· article· en· W1976529005 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul Guy, Larry K. Barrett, Curtis Fatig

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnology Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGoddard Space Flight CenterAcademy of FinlandNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsJames Webb Space TelescopeSpace (punctuation)Systems engineeringComputer scienceTelescopeAeronauticsEngineeringAstronomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), represents a significant undertaking in the study of the early formation of galaxies. Dubbed "NASA's Cosmology Time Machine", JWST is scheduled to launch in 2013. One area Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) has responsibility for is the Integrated Science Instrument Module (ISIM) element of JWST, which will integrate the four infrared Science Instruments (Sis) that are currently under development. This represents a considerable challenge, since the various instrument development teams (IDTs) are geographically located in various facilities across the United States, in Europe, and in Canada. A fundamental issue is to manage the risk associated with coordinating the development of the Sis and their associated engineering products with the eventual integration of these independently developed components into ISIM. To this end, the ISIM Team at GSFC has developed a strategy for providing the IDTs with a common set of ground support equipment (GSE) to facilitate their development efforts. This commonality enables the various IDTs to effortlessly share engineering products within the limits imposed by non-technical (i.e., security) constraints.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTechnology Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207