Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent announcement of an increase in government spending to allow the UK to join the European Southern Observatory (ESO; Physics Today, January 2001, page 25) may well have sent a shudder through the US affiliates of the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy. Is this announcement, following as it does proposals for a non-NATO European “rapid reaction” military force, another instance of growing isolationism between Europe and the US? Will it threaten the future of joint projects like the 8-meter Gemini telescopes, a collaborative effort of the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and South America? Actually, it underscores the need for greater cooperation, and is a clear signal that science is a global, rather than a national, pursuit.During science funding difficulties, the cry is often raised of national pride and the need to spend money on research to beat the competition. The UK has long realized that it cannot afford to fund major astronomy projects by itself, and has worked in various partnerships. That experience has been, on the whole, very positive. It has provided excellent observational facilities and has shown that added value can come from the resulting interaction among partners. This success is no news for particle physics, a field in which cost has essentially driven the most complex experiments to a single global site.It is the conflict between shared facilities and “national” science that may itself generate a problem. Does each nation try to use its shared facilities to steal a scientific advance on its partners? As the sheer scale of frontier experiment and observation increases, and time on such facilities becomes ever more expensive, we need a new approach. We must share the science, too.In astronomy, the next generation of large telescopes—the Atacama Large Millimeter Array and a proposed extremely large 50- to 100-meter optical/infrared telescope—must be global projects. Both the US and ESO are heavily involved, and that involvement necessitates stronger ties. But to capitalize on the great investment involved, will we be able to share the glory of the inevitable discoveries? Will the New York Times headlines declare “World Science Team Discovers …” or will it be “US Worried As UK/European ‘Boffins’ Scoop Discovery”?Achieving a global aspect to science programs may well be difficult, even in good international partnerships. Satisfying reasonable national aspirations for observation time and still running major joint programs is not trivial. The US has experienced such problems in the rather uneasy atmosphere generated by variable community access to national and privately-funded observatories. Large joint international observing programs have a reputation for inefficient use of telescope time, and innovative thinking is needed to allocate this scarce resource effectively and equitably.Perhaps it’s just a shift of credit that will be needed. We scientists (and the funding governments) need to be prepared to acknowledge and accept success for the global project itself, an accolade for all the partners rather than individuals. In big projects we will need to share, rather than grab, success. Science itself knows no regional or national barriers. Neither should our pursuit of it.© 2001 American Institute of Physics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.040 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.040 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.061 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".