MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326528915 · doi:10.1177/154193120805200107

The Role of Human Engineering in the Design of the Orion Spacecraft

2008· article· en· W2326528915 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Exploration and Technology
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrewProcess (computing)Work (physics)Systems engineeringPanel discussionMars Exploration ProgramEngineering design processEngineeringSpacecraftSession (web analytics)Computer scienceAeronauticsEngineering managementBusinessAerospace engineeringMechanical engineeringAstrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The panel will discuss NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle, Orion, which is being designed to take four humans back to the moon, and lay the groundwork for future manned missions to Mars. Given that the last design work for such a vehicle was performed over 30 years ago, a lot has changed. Since the contract was only recently awarded (2007), there is much work to be done: finalize requirements, mature the technology, design the systems and modules, produce the hardware and software, test the systems, and prepare for first flight operations planned for 2014. The panel, consisting of customer and contractor human engineering professionals, as well as an astronaut who is actively participating in the design process, will discuss current design issues, human factors approaches that are being applied, and current technical and cultural challenges. Audience insights and recommendations for addressing these challenges will form the interactive portion of the panel session.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.182 · 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