MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129041600 · doi:10.1109/aero.2005.1559716

An international approach to lunar exploration in preparation for Mars

2005· article· en· W2129041600 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Exploration and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGruppo Nazionale per il Calcolo ScientificoNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsMars Exploration ProgramSpace explorationContext (archaeology)Space (punctuation)Exploration of MarsPlanetary explorationAgency (philosophy)Space technologySpace policySet (abstract data type)Space researchRelevance (law)EngineeringComputer sciencePolitical scienceAstrobiologyAerospace engineeringGeographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Aurora Program in Europe and The vision for space exploration in the United States is representative of a shift in space policies worldwide toward the goal of human and robotic exploration. Although some details differ, these plans share a common theme of expansion of a human presence across the solar system. In particular, the plans involve near-term exploration of the Moon in preparation for eventual human missions to Mars. Given the current relevance of the topic and the international nature of space exploration as expressed in these policies, the International Space University, with sponsorship from the European Space Agency (ESA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Canadian Technology Company Optech, Inc., has assigned a group of post-graduate students and professionals the task of evaluating the Moon as a test bed for Mars. This analysis includes not only the critical technologies and operational capabilities needed for Mars exploration but also the political, legal, and social context in which the effort will be undertaken. Upon identifying the enabling concepts that can be rehearsed in the context of near-term lunar exploration, the team proposes a design for a set of lunar missions and analyzes the associated policy framework. This paper is a summary of the more comprehensive 122-page report. The team consists of 47 future space leaders from 17 countries around the world. This situation presented a unique set of challenges. Organizing a group this large and diverse to produce a single consistent report required a carefully conceived structure and a great deal of flexibility from each team member. On the other hand, with these considerable challenges overcome, the report presents a truly international, intercultural, and interdisciplinary perspective on how to extend humanity's presence beyond the confines of Earth.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpace Exploration and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207