MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390903004 · doi:10.1089/ast.2022.0158

Future of the Search for Life: Workshop Report

2024· article· en· W4390903004 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marc Neveu, R. C. Quinn, Laura M. Barge, K. L. Craft, Christopher R. German, Stephanie Getty, Christopher R. Glein, Macarena Parra, Aaron S. Burton, Francesca Cary, Andrea Corpolongo, Lucas M. Fifer, Andrew Gangidine, Diana Gentry, Christos D. Georgiou, Zaid Haddadin, Craig W. Herbold, Aila Inaba, Seán F. Jordan, Hemani Kalucha, Pavel Klier, Kas Knicely, An Li, P.J. McNally, M. Millán, Neveda Naz, Chinmayee Govinda Raj, Peter Schroedl, Jennifer Timm, Ziming Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueAstrobiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience Mission DirectorateUniversity of California, San DiegoGoddard Space Flight CenterPolytechnique MontréalSecretário de Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior, Governo do Estado de ParanaUniversity of California, RiversideCouncil for Research in the Social Sciences, Columbia UniversityJet Propulsion LaboratoryCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationDartmouth CollegeCalifornia Institute of TechnologyYale University
KeywordsSample (material)Computer scienceData scienceSystems engineeringBreakoutRendering (computer graphics)EngineeringArtificial intelligenceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2-week, virtual Future of the Search for Life science and engineering workshop brought together more than 100 scientists, engineers, and technologists in March and April 2022 to provide their expert opinion on the interconnections between life-detection science and technology. Participants identified the advances in measurement and sampling technologies they believed to be necessary to perform in situ searches for life elsewhere in our Solar System, 20 years or more in the future. Among suggested measurements for these searches, those pertaining to three potential indicators of life termed “dynamic disequilibrium,” “catalysis,” and “informational polymers” were identified as particularly promising avenues for further exploration. For these three indicators, small breakout groups of participants identified measurement needs and knowledge gaps, along with corresponding constraints on sample handling (acquisition and processing) approaches for a variety of environments on Enceladus, Europa, Mars, and Titan. Despite the diversity of these environments, sample processing approaches all tend to be more complex than those that have been implemented on missions or envisioned for mission concepts to date. The approaches considered by workshop breakout groups progress from nondestructive to destructive measurement techniques, and most involve the need for fluid (especially liquid) sample processing. Sample processing needs were identified as technology gaps. These gaps include technology and associated sampling strategies that allow the preservation of the thermal, mechanical, and chemical integrity of the samples upon acquisition; and to optimize the sample information obtained by operating suites of instruments on common samples. Crucially, the interplay between science-driven life-detection strategies and their technological implementation highlights the need for an unprecedented level of payload integration and extensive collaboration between scientists and engineers, starting from concept formulation through mission deployment of life-detection instruments and sample processing systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.019

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstrobiologySame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207