Canadian Space Astronomy: past, present and future (Presentation Video)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian astronomers have participated in space astronomy since the first OAO missions in the 1960s and 1970s. Individual Canadian scientists have been members of HST instrument teams, and advisory groups for IUE and HEAO missions, as well as competing successfully for observing time on NASA, ESA, and Japanese astronomy satellites. With the formation of the Canadian Space Agency, Canada became partner in the FUSE mission, the ISRO Astrosat, and the JWST, providing hardware and science team membership. The Canadian Astronomy Data centre was one of the three original world-wide archive distribution centres for HST, and now is involved in many space and ground-based data services. The MOST observatory is an all- Canadian microsat that has operated for nearly a decade. Canada is currently involved in partnership in a number of imminent space facilities, as well as participating in teams defining future missions. I will describe this history, and review the technical and scientific capability that exist in Canada now. I will outline prospects for the future, including a concept for a high resolution orbiting telescope that will fill the gap in high resolution UV astronomy when HST operations cease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.131 | 0.033 |
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".