MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280968460 · doi:10.4271/2004-01-2545

Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly Software Product Improvements

2004· article· en· W2280968460 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Young

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon dioxideComputer scienceProduct (mathematics)SoftwareProcess engineeringEngineeringChemistryOperating systemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly (CDRA) on board the International Space Station (ISS) has experienced periodic check valve and selector valve failures as a result of a gradual build-up of contamination from particles that have breeched the adsorbent bed seals. The current software that controls CDRA has limitations that make troubleshooting the unit difficult in these situations, in large part due to the fact that valve position telemetry is only available during certain times. There are also situations where it is required to perform operations manually that would benefit from added code logic and commands to facilitate these operations. The software has been reviewed for possible upgrades and changes that will allow engineers to better troubleshoot the unit in the event of various failures and also allow for better operability in degraded states. This paper will first give an overview of the current CDRA software architecture and logic and then outline the changes that have been proposed to the ISS program office to accomplish these goals.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: Software
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.036

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.204 · 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
GenreSoftware

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207