MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Communications Research and Development at NASA Glenn Research Center

2012· article· en· W1996162747 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Calvin T. Ramos, Gene Fujikawa, Jennifer L. Jordan, Félix A. Miranda, Denise S. Ponchak, John J. Pouch, Thomas M. Wallett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aerospace Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSatellite Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunications satelliteResearch centerTelecommunicationsEngineeringAeronauticsTechnology developmentControl communicationsSpace technologySatelliteCommunications systemAerospace engineeringPolitical scienceManufacturing engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last several decades, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Glenn Research Center (GRC), formerly Lewis Research Center (LeRC) has performed research and technology development of aeronautic- and space-based communications in support of NASA and the nation. In the 1970s, GRC partnered with the Canadian Department of Communications through the Communications Technology Satellite (CTS) Project, in which GRC researchers were responsible for the development of critical technology components, such as the high-power, traveling-wave tube amplifier (TWTA), thereby pioneering the surge of television channels via satellite. For its efforts, LeRC was awarded an Emmy by the television industry. The decade of the 1980s served as a period for technology development that culminated in the launch of the Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS) in 1993. The ACTS demonstration of spot beam antenna technology resulted in an overall increase of efficiency in satellite communications. In the latter part of the 1990s and until today, GRC research engineers have continued to conduct research and technology development in multiple domains. The primary focus of this article is to introduce the reader to the long heritage at GRC in communications research and development through the CTS and ACTS projects and delve into specific technology areas following the ACTS Project to today in support of high-data rate communications.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0720.032

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 head0.267
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.124 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aerospace EngineeringSame topicSatellite Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207