MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059246562 · doi:10.1177/1946756714536142

Lunar Helium-3 Fuel for Nuclear Fusion

2014· article· en· W2059246562 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Thomas Simko, Matthew Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Futures Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft and Cryogenic Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsContext (archaeology)ElectricityTonRadioactive wasteNuclear powerEnvironmental scienceSpent nuclear fuelNatural resource economicsWaste managementEngineeringGeologyNuclear physicsPhysicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nuclear fusion of helium-3 ( 3 He) can be used to generate electrical power with little or no radioactive waste and no carbon emissions. Some forty-four tons of this fuel could meet the electricity needs of the United States for a year. Although rare on Earth, an estimated one million tons of 3 He has collected on the surface of the moon. While it would cost approximately US$17 billion to develop a mine producing one ton of 3 He per year, such an operation is commercially viable over the medium term given the estimated value of that ton of fuel: US$3.7 billion. This article outlines the technical and economic issues related to 3 He and its extraction, and it presents a novel approach to estimating the worth of the fuel. The potential of 3 He as a future energy source is set in the context of global energy forecasts and international efforts to investigate lunar 3 He resources—including a recent Chinese mission.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations39
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Futures ReviewSame topicSpacecraft and Cryogenic TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207