MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160894080 · doi:10.1002/0471263869.sst054

Military Ground Control Centers, United States

2003· other· en· W2160894080 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam L. Mortensen, S. Pete Worden

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAeronauticsSpace (punctuation)National securitySatelliteService (business)Space technologyModernization theoryOuter spaceOperations researchPolitical scienceComputer securityAerospace engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceLawBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Current military space operations centers grew out of 1950s and early 1960s facilities and missions—some of those missions were quite different from those of today. The military is quite conservative when it comes to innovation and modernization. And nowhere is this more evident than in space operations. The watchword is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Thus, a facility, and even its hardware, has often been adapted from a previous mission in the same facility. Because the old mission, often critical to national security, must continue as new missions are brought on, old hardware and procedures are replaced only when new technologies and hardware are well proven. Similarly, organizations responsible for military space missions tend to be adapted from older, often quite different missions and organizations. In recent years, this is particularly evident in the U.S. Air Force's space organizations that are steadily being evolved out of and in a way that mimics air operations. Organizations such as the Air Force Space Command's 50th Space Wing, the operator of much of the Service's on‐orbit satellites, is organized exactly as a flying wing, complete with the assumption of a unit name. As this article unfolds, the reader should keep this conservatism and legacy in mind. The U.S. military currently maintains ground control centers for three related missions: early warning, space surveillance/space control, and on‐orbit satellite operations. Early warning and space surveillance/space control evolved from the North American Air Defense mission developed jointly by the United States and Canada in the 1950s, culminating in the construction of the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) Combat Operations Center (COC) in the early 1960s. On‐orbit satellite operations centers have a different pedigree. Shrouded in secrecy during most of the Cold War, these facilities began as control centers for the United States space‐based intelligence collection mission. As such, they were originally developed and largely operated by the still secretive National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). To understand current military operations centers, it is necessary to understand the history of these missions and organizations. This history is the focus of this article. The future of the military use of space is discussed.

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)0.002
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 score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1550.026

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpace exploration and regulationFrench-language works237,207