Overview of SAND-E: Semi-Autonomous Navigation for Detrital Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rovers are the state of the art for the exploration and detection of past habitability and life on other worlds. One of the most basic functions of a rover is terrain navigation. Information collected by the rover is used autonomously to mitigate terrain hazards such large rocks, while humans qualitatively assess hazardous geologic terrain such as soil type and degree of rock cover. Planetary scientists use the same information to select targets such as drill sites, and for basic scientific analysis such as characterization of rock outcrops. Although the data is complementary, data from terrain analysis for navigation and terrain analysis for scientific investigations are poorly integrated. The lack of integration creates science and operation inefficiencies that limit exploration of habitable environments. As new modes of exploration come online, such as unmanned aerial systems (UAS) (e.g., the Mars Helicopter Scout and Titan Dragonfly), a need exists to integrate terrain data and science analysis to improve operational and scientific outcomes during exploration. We present an overview of a project aimed at evaluating the effectiveness and capability rover and UAS-based semi-automated terrain analysis using the Automated Soil Assessment Systems (ASAS) developed by Mission Control Space Services for navigating, selecting targets for sampling, and characterizing mafic detrital sediments along glacio-fluvial-aeolian sand transport pathways in Iceland. We describe recent advances in automated terrain analysis in sandy environments and scientific uses of terrain assessment from sandy environments. We assess fluvial and aeolian terrains in Iceland and show how terrain analysis data can inform scientific characterization of these environments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.009 |
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".