MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129868089 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3813

"SPACE WORM": BORE-HOLE ANCHORING MECHANISM FOR MICRO-G PLANETARY EXPLORATION DRILL

2011· article· en· W2129868089 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hugo Gagnon, Emile Abou-Khalil, Omar Azrak, Alexei A. Morozov, Howard Jones, Gita Ravindran

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Exploration and Technology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnchoringMechanism (biology)DrillDrillingPlanetActuatorSpace (punctuation)Computer scienceResource (disambiguation)ArchitectureIdentification (biology)Mechanical engineeringGeologyEngineeringAerospace engineeringPhysicsArtificial intelligenceStructural engineeringAstronomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planetary drilling has become an essential need in the search for life or resource identification on the Moon and other near-Earth objects. This paper focuses on the mechanical design aspects of a bore-hole anchoring mechanism architecture that is relatively independent from its “mother” vehicle. The recommended solution comprises a two member actuated anchoring mechanism. Each actuator is driven by one leading screw thus providing a considerable mechanical advantage to the anchor shoes. The anchor’s ability to “walk” up and down the hole is similar to that of an earthworm, hence the naming “Space Worm”. The present paper is not an extensive technical solution to a planetary drilling unit, but rather proposes general concepts that could eventually constitute the backbone of such a sophisticated machine.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicSpace Exploration and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207