Bibliographic record
Abstract
For technology-dependent societies, where technology has become the solution to a host of problems, energy has become not only critical for growth, but more importantly, critical for survival.The cleanliness of renewable energy should not be the only driving force behind the interest in these new clean energy alternatives.Our survival and adaptation techniques have, for better or worse, become highly technology dependent that not only clean but more energy sources would be needed.Also, in light of the effect of energy sources on political conflicts, these sources need to be reliable, independent and immune from geo-political intrigues.This aspect precisely exhibits the strategic significance of developing technology to access practically infinite supply of clean energy.Solar-based solar power (SBSP), a concept of collecting power from space on a satellite via photo-voltaic solar cells and then transporting or beaming the power to earth using microwaves was proposed in the 1940s within the realm of futuristic science fiction.Up until the 1990s, several technology pundits and scientists deemed the feasibility of SBSP very unlikely.However, early assessments were based on present (then) and future technology projections.All those assessments, or most of them, have been revised at the beginning of the 20th century to the point that countries such as India and Japan started aggressive exploration of SBSP.In fact, Japan and China have put into action plans to have prototype spacebased power plants operational within a decade.Most recently, the USA has significantly accelerated its SBSP technology development by conducting preliminary tests in 2021.Clearly, despite the projected high cost of installing a space-based power plant, the lure of free supply of energy is overwhelming, both strategically and economically.In this talk, I will provide an assessment of the feasibility of SBSP and the transformation of the concept from the realm of science fiction to the prototype stage.I will also discuss some technology aspects that could have accelerated the enthusiasm for SBSP and, more importantly, its feasibility
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".