Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the advent of space flight is relatively new, humankind has always had a fascination with the heavens. Ancient religions across numerous civilizations had spiritual and/or religious beliefs as to what lay in the heavens, or what is now referred to as outer space. Humans constantly searched for answers among the stars and believed space to be a place of the Gods. Though religious institutions, such as the Catholic Church, were often at odds with scientific discoveries, the astronomers did not let that dampen their spirits. This overlap between spirituality and space science continued right into the dawn of achievable space flight technology. Important engineers such as Werner von Braun were driven by faith and their belief it was humankind’s destiny to unravel the mysteries of the heavens. Almost all of the NASA astronauts and engineers during the Gemini and Apollo programs held strong spiritual beliefs. And beyond that, many more recent astronauts have described a transformative experience during their time in space, something that several prominent psychologists have begun to explore. With the recent beginning of humankind’s next manned moon mission, Artemis, well underway, it is time to examine the very obvious and powerful connection that exists in humans between spirituality and spaceflight. This paper will examine exactly this, with a slant towards NASA and the West and how spirituality and space will continue to interact into the foreseeable future.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".