MELISSA: Overview of the Project and Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The MELISSA (Micro-Ecological Life Support Alternative) project was initiated in 1989. The recycling system is conceived as a micro-organisms and higher plants based ecosystem. As a matter of fact, it is intended as a tool to gain understanding of closed life support, as well as the development of the technology for a future life support system for long term manned space missions, e.g. a lunar base or a mission to Mars. The collaboration was established through a Memorandum of Understanding and is managed by ESA. It involves several independent organisations: University of Ghent, EPAS, SCK, VITO (B), University of Clermont Ferrand, SHERPA (F), University “Autonoma” of Barcelona (E), University of Guelph (CND). It is co-funded by ESA, the MELISSA partners, the Belgian (DWTC), the Spanish (CIRIT and CICYT) and Canadian (CRESTech, CSA) authorities. The driving element of MELISSA is the production of food water and oxygen from organic waste (inedible biomass, CO2, faeces, urea). Based on the principle of an “aquatic” ecosystem, MELISSA process comprises 5 compartments from the anoxygenic fermenter up to the photosynthetic one (algae and higher plants). The choice of this compartmentalised structure is required by the very high level of safety requirements and justified by the need of an engineering approach and to build deterministic control strategy. During the past 15 years of research and development, a very progressive approach has been developed to understand and control the MELISSA loop. This approach starts from the selection of the microbial strains and higher plant crops, their characterisation and mathematical modelling, the validation of the control strategy, up to the demonstration on Earth, at pilot scale. The project is organised in 5 phases: Basic R&D, Preliminary flight experiment, Ground & space demonstration, Terrestrial transfer, Education & communication.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.031 |
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".