An Analysis for the Use of Research and Education Networks and Commercial Network Vendors in Support of Space Based Mission Critical and Non-Critical Networking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, and in the past, dedicated communication circuits and with very stringent performance requirements are being used to support manned and unmanned mission critical ground operations at GSFC, JSC, MSFC, KSC and other NASA facilities. Because of the evolution of network technology, it is time to investigate using other approaches to providing mission services for space ground operations. The current NASA approach is not in keeping with the evolution of network technologies. In the past decade various research and education networks dedicated to scientific and educational endeavors have emerged, as well as commercial networking providers, that employ advanced networking technologies. These technologies have significantly changed networking in recent years. Significant advances in network routing techniques, various topologies and equipment have made commercial networks very stable and virtually error free. Advances in Dense Wave Division Multiplexing will provide tremendous amounts of bandwidth for the future. The question is: Do these networks, which are controlled and managed centrally, provide a level of service that equals the stringent NASA performance requirements. If they do, what are the implication(s) of using them for critical space based ground operations as they are, without adding high cost contractual performance requirements? A second question is the feasibility of applying the emerging grid technology in space operations. Is it feasible to develop a Space Operations Grid and/or a Space Science Grid? Since these network's connectivity is substantial, both nationally and internationally, development of these sorts of grids may be feasible. The concept of research and education networks has evolved to the international community as well. Currently there are international RENs connecting the US in Chicago to and from Europe, South America, Asia and the Pacific rim, Russia and Canada. And most countries in these areas have their own research and education network as do many states in the USA.
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 | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".