Expedition Mars: A Mars Analogue Program Dedicated to Advancing Competency in Human Planetary Surface Exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mars analogue research facilities are excellent tools for advancing comparative planetology scientific research and exploration methodologies, as well as for investigating and devising countermeasures for the challenges astronauts may encounter while exploring the Martian surface. Analogue studies, and more specifically human mission simulations, also play an important role by training the future leaders in space exploration. With this in mind, the Mars Society of Canada (MSC) established the Expedition Mars program to advance the competence (knowledge, expertise and leadership) needed for human exploration of Mars. The program is divided into two distinct, but complementary, Mars analogue expedition series: Expedition Mars Analogue Training Series (ExMATS) and Expedition Mars Analogue Research Series (ExMARS). The ExMATS missions are designed to train and certify researchers, engineers and commanding officers for ExMARS missions which are dedicated to conducting extended Mars analogue research missions for maximum return on scientific research. Through the two series, Expedition Mars has established a systematic and sustainable method of developing and transferring competence within the program, and to the space community.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.008 |
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".