Bibliographic record
Abstract
As is so often the case with research projects that eventually become books, the largest contributor to the success of this effort was passion.For as long as I can remember, I have looked into the night sky with a sense of bewilderment and pure wonder.More importantly, perhaps, as a child I relished the arrival of the annual family vacation to Florida, where at least one day of our retreat to Daytona was devoted to taking a very excited little boy down the coast and across the Indian River lagoon to the Kennedy Space Center.With a freshly stamped admission ticket in hand, I was unleashed among the exhibits to marvel at satellites and space capsules, lunar buggies and moon rocks.The exhibition on the "space transportation system" was my favourite.When I first observed this technological marvel in 1979, the space shuttle as it became commonly known had not yet launched into orbit.But the conceptual artwork surrounding the three-metre-tall model of the shuttle piggybacked on its boosters assured me that, when I was a "grown-up, " I had a very good chance of living and working in outer space just like Dr. Heywood R. Floyd in the famous movie 2001: A Space Odyssey.Despite still being grounded later in life, I continued to ask myself "How did we get into space?"and "Who or what might we some day discover there?"I knew, perhaps with a hint of disappointment, that the latter question would probably not be answered in my lifetime, but as a student of history, I did know that the former question could be more easily tackled.My undergraduate studies revealed to me that the origins of rocketry and spaceflight were born out of matters of defence, and upon entering the War Studies Program at the Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, Ontario, in 1997, I decided to focus my graduate and post-graduate studies on science, technology, and international relations, with a particular interest in missile, rocketry, and space programs.This book had its genesis in my earlier examinations of the subject that focused upon much broader analyses of the relationship between the United States and Canada in matters related to missile and defence space programs.Among other things, it demonstrated that the two countries shared a rich history in scientific and technological cooperation, and that Canada's own efforts in early post-war rocketry, space science, and technology development were
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".