MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009743692 · doi:10.2514/6.2003-2708

Lockheed Martin Response to the OSP Challenge

2003· article· en· W2009743692 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Sullivan, Randy Munkres, Thomas Megna, Joanne Beckham

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA International Air and Space Symposium and Exposition: The Next 100 Years · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Exploration and Technology
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Lockheed Martin Orbital Space Plane System provides crew transfer and rescue for the International Space Station more safely and affordably than current human space transportation systems. Through planned upgrades and spiral development, it is also capable of satisfying the Nation's evolving space transportation requirements and enabling the national vision for human space flight. The OSP System, formulated through rigorous requirements definition and decomposition, consists of spacecraft and launch vehicle flight elements, ground processing facilities and existing transportation, launch complex, range, mission control, weather, navigation, communication and tracking infrastructure. The concept of operations, including procurement, mission planning, launch preparation, launch and mission operations and vehicle maintenance, repair and turnaround, is structured to maximize flexibility and mission availability and minimize program life cycle cost. The approach to human rating and crew safety utilizes simplicity, performance margin, redundancy, abort modes and escape modes to mitigate credible hazards that cannot be designed out of the system.

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)0.005
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.007

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 head0.214
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA International Air and Space Symposium and Exposition: The Next 100 YearsSame topicSpace Exploration and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207