MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077733120 · doi:10.1017/s1743921312017000

The SCAR Astronomy & Astrophysics from Antarctica Scientific Research Programme

2012· article· en· W2077733120 on OpenAlexaff
J. W. V. Storey, Lyu Abe, M. I. Andersen, P. S. Anderson, Michael Burton, Xiangqun Cui, Takashi Ichikawa, A. Karle, James P. Lloyd, S. Masi, Eric Steinbring, Tony Travouillon, Peter Tuthill, Hongyang Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Astronomical Union · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntarctic treatyAstronomyPhysicsOceanographyPolitical scienceGeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract SCAR, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, is, like the IAU, a committee of ICSU, the International Council for Science. For over 30 years, SCAR has provided scientific advice to the Antarctic Treaty System and made numerous recommendations on a variety of matters. In 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics from Antarctica was recognized as one of SCAR's five Scientific Research Programs. Broadly stated, the objectives of Astronomy & Astrophysics from Antarctica are to coordinate astronomical activities in Antarctica in a way that ensures the best possible outcomes from international investment in Antarctic astronomy, and maximizes the opportunities for productive interaction with other disciplines. There are four Working Groups, dealing with site testing, Arctic astronomy, science goals, and major new facilities. Membership of the Working Groups is open to any professional working in astronomy or a related field.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.026

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Astronomical UnionSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207