MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021206135

Lunar Underground Mining and Construction : A Terrestrial Vision enabling Space Exploration and Commerce

2010· article· en· W3021206135 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venue38th COSPAR Scientific Assembly · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)Space explorationFoundation (evidence)EngineeringComputer scienceGeographyArchaeologyAerospace engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As early as 1959 the US army considered a permanent underground base on the moon. While the original underground idea has significant merit, space agencies have strayed from this sensible concept, focusing instead on short-term touch and go missions and relying on the expendable paradigm. Newly disclosed advances in underground telerobotic mining technology for terrestrial purposes provides a foundation for an emerging opportunity for international space programs to conceptualize, design, build and implement an underground lunar habitat and polar volatile mining and processing operation. This paper discusses an emerging uniquely Canadian concept for a permanent manned outpost on the moon, an outpost that could enable a longer-term commercial enterprise. The paper offers rationale for an underground lunar outpost, and discusses how it might be constructed as well as the terrestrial technologies that could enable a radiationprotected underground habitat to made and later utilized to mine lunar volatiles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.235 · 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