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 OpenAlexaffabout
Greg Baiden, Louis Grenier, Brad R. Blair

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.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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

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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue38th COSPAR Scientific AssemblySame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207