Potential Impact of Space Environments on Developmental and Maturational Programs Which Evolved to Meet the Boundary Conditions of Earth: Will Maturing Humans Be Able to Establish a Functional Biologic System Set Point under Non-Earth Conditions?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammalian development and maturation, particularly processes for humans have evolved in the context of the boundary conditions of Earth (i.e. 1 g gravity, geomagnetic field, background radiation) to yield functional individuals, although the process is not perfect and “errors” do occur. With the advent of spaceflight to low Earth orbit (the International Space Station), humans are now exposed to microgravity and increased exposure to radiation. However, thus far, only adult humans have served as astronauts, but this will likely change with plans to explore deep space and colonize planets. Thus, conception, fetal development, post-birth maturation, puberty and skeletal maturity will occur in the context of boundary conditions that did not shape human evolution and influence physiological and biomechanical systems designed to function within the Earth’s boundary conditions. Thus, processes utilizing the 1 g environment (i.e. walking upright) and the geomagnetic field (i.e. the electrical/biomagnetic basis of neural interactions) will have to adapt to new boundary conditions, providing opportunity for additional errors or alterations in processing during development which could impact functional outcomes at multiple levels. This review/perspective will discuss some of these issues and attempt to provide direction for addressing the potential issues to be encountered.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it