MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Wheeler Raymond Agriculture for Space: People and Countries Paving the Way

2017· article· ru· W2773755293 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wheeler Raymond

Bibliographic record

VenueИсследования космоса · 2017
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldEngineering
TopicAgricultural Engineering and Mechanization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)AgricultureGeographySociologyBusinessArchitectural engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agricultural systems for space have been discussed since the works of Tsiolkovsky in the early 20th century. Central to the concept is the use of photosynthetic organisms and light to generate oxygen and food. Research in the area started in 1950s and 60s through the works of Jack Myers and others, who studied algae for O2 production and CO2 removal for the US Air Force and NASA. Studies on algal production and controlled environment agriculture were also carried out by Russian researchers in Krasnoyarsk, beginning in 1960s. NASA initiated its CELSS Program ca. 1980 with testing focused on controlled environment production of some plants. Related tests with humans and crops were conducted at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in the 1990s. The European Space Agency MELiSSA Project began in the late 1980s and pursued ecological approaches for providing gas, water and materials recycling for space life support, and later expanded to include plant testing.As a result of these and other (Japan, Canada, China) studies for space agriculture novel technologies and findings have been produced. The theme of agriculture for space has contributed to, and benefited from terrestrial, controlled environment agriculture and will continue doing so into the future.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0670.022

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.186
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

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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueИсследования космосаSame topicAgricultural Engineering and MechanizationFrench-language works237,207