MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2229426305 · doi:10.4271/2001-01-2169

‘Sleeping With the Stars’ – The Design of a Personal Crew Quarter for the International Space Station

2001· article· en· W2229426305 on OpenAlexaffabout
Susan Marie Fairburn, Stuart Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrewFlexibility (engineering)Variety (cybernetics)International Space StationSpace (punctuation)AeronauticsQuarter (Canadian coin)Life support systemArchitectural engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringSimulationGeographyAerospace engineeringManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="htmlview paragraph">As the International Space Station (ISS) takes shape, the prospect of living in space for prolonged periods becomes a reality for a greater number of individuals. Crewmembers aboard the ISS will live alongside each other for months, in confined spaces, under difficult conditions. Living in a hermetic environment, with other individuals from a variety of cultural backgrounds, will inevitably cause stresses. The living environment must meet a variety of needs in order to be conducive to the well being of the individual and the crew community.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">This Master’s design project addresses the design of a private, individual, crew quarter. The goal is to meet a crewmember’s functional requirements, as well as providing the means to achieve privacy and comfort while considering the qualitative aspects of the personal space. The proposed design concept allows for control of body position and of the orientation and layout out of the interior features, thereby offering flexibility of use and personalization. The design attempts to be functionally and aesthetically supportive of a crewmember’s well being and productivity in space.</div>

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207