Rasionalisme Masyarakat Internasional Dalam Sains Dan Teknologi: Studi Kasus Inisiatif Amerika Serikat Dalam International Space Station Program Di Tahun 1998
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many nations have developed their potency and capacity of space science and technology. This happened due to the assumption of Space as neutral territory and it is free to be explored. Moreover, as its nature that still provides mystery. International Space Station (ISS) then created to accommodating nations curiosity related to science and technology of space. ISS is a laboratory in Earth Orbit. It's Zero Gravity condition that makes it ideal to conduct a lot of research that could not be on Earth which have a lot of benefit for man. ISS is made by International cooperation of United States of America, Canada, Japan, Russia and Europe Union. America indeed is the initiator of ISS. Through this research, it will be identified deeply rationalization of America behind its contribution to ISS building.This research is an explanative research which intends to explain phenomenon or issue in International Relations. Library Research method is used through primary and secondary sources from Books, Website, and Journals that mostly obtained from NASA's and USA's Government.This research as well would explain linkages of independent and dependent variable so the result of the research could be understood. That America's Commitment to International cooperation of space science and technology along Its eagerness to making ‘peace' with Russia after Cold War have been succeeded in creating ISS especially by their precidential pro-science policies including Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".