MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394971743 · doi:10.47611/jsrhs.v12i4.5669

Space Debris Disposal: A Review of Feasibility and Effectiveness

2023· review· en· W4394971743 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Student Research · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSpace debrisDebrisSpace (punctuation)Environmental scienceComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Orbital debris - or manmade objects that are no longer in use and are orbiting the Earth - is beginning to become a concern for the longevity of space exploration and satellite infrastructure. This article will describe different methods of debris removal, compare and contrast the methods, and their individual applicability on a large scale. This paper demonstrates that there is no singular method for the retrieval and disposal of space debris. Rather, in order to tackle this problem, we should look at it holistically, and combine multiple systems in conjunction with each other for the best results in dealing with this ever-growing issue.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.352
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.205 · 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