MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094989264 · doi:10.2514/6.2020-4094

Resilience in Permanent Space Settlement

2020· article· en· W3094989264 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher D. Geiger

Bibliographic record

VenueASCEND 2020 · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSettlement (finance)Resilience (materials science)ScheduleRisk managementHuman settlementProcess (computing)Space (punctuation)Risk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceProcess managementOperations researchBusinessEngineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When developing the technical and social governance for permanent space settlement there is a greater requirement for resilience than in even the most complex and long-duration manned space mission to date. There is an enormous body of knowledge and practice in space system risk management including Risk Informed Decision-Making and Continuous Risk Management. However, the complexity and timeframe of permanent space settlements (e.g. Moon Village and manned asteroid mining operations) justifies more than a traditional Risk Management (RM) approach. By incorporating a Resilience Improvement (RI) process in addition to RM a more enduring settlement can be developed. This paper outlines a method to use a combined RM/RI process to maximize safety, cost, schedule, technical, and quality outcomes. RM’s mitigations and RI’s adaptability complement each other. By executing each process in parallel and adjudicating the results based on principles, objectives and costs the results can be balanced between optimization for known scenarios and preparation for unknown situations.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASCEND 2020Same topicSpace exploration and regulationFrench-language works237,207