MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807198292 · doi:10.4095/293148

Comparison of commonly used space radiation environment models (highly elliptical high inclination orbit application)

2013· report· en· W2807198292 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lidia Nikitina, L. Trichtchenko

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNuclear Issues and Defense
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrbit (dynamics)Elliptic orbitRadiationSpace (punctuation)Space radiationPhysicsAerospace engineeringGeometryComputer scienceOpticsMathematicsAstronomyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research was undertaken to provide the radiation hazard assessment for satellites in highly elliptical orbits (HEO) based on available models of the radiation environment. This research gives qualitative and quantitative descriptions of the radiation environment on three HEO orbits. These orbits were selected as candidates for the Polar Communications and Weather mission (PCW) proposal to provide continuous communication and meteorological observations in northern areas of Canada. These orbits are 12-hr Molniya orbit, 16-hr TAP orbit, and 24-hr Tundra orbit. The analyses of the trapped radiation are made by simulations using two basic models for the radiation environment, AE8/AP8 and AE9/AP9. The model AE8/AP8 was implemented in Spenvis and is has been used during the last decades, while the AE9/AP9 model has just been released. The comparison of different models for solar proton fluences and galactic cosmic rays have also been done with use of different models available in SPENVIS tools. Comparison of these different models for the trapped radiation, solar proton fluences, and galactic cosmic rays provides the better understanding for the radiation environment on HEO orbits.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Issues and DefenseFrench-language works237,207