MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Electromagnetic Vector Sensor Satellite for Detection of Harmful Space Debris

2024· article· en· W4403212258 on OpenAlexaff
P. A. Bernhardt, Andrew Howarth, Lauchie Scott, Bengt Eliasson, W. A. Bristow

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Satellite Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace debrisSatelliteRemote sensingComputer scienceDebrisAerospace engineeringPhysicsEngineeringGeologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of satellites launched into low Earth orbit (LEO) is increasing at an exponential rate. Currently, there are about 27,000 known space objects and over 100 million of unknown pieces of space debris. Collision avoidance requires precise knowledge of the positions for all space objects. New techniques are being developed to detect the small, < 10 cm, objects by the plasma waves they generate in space. The bases for these techniques are that all space objects in orbit around the Earth (1) pass through a magnetized plasma, (2) become electrically charged, and thus (3) produce detectable plasma waves. Field aligned irregularities (FAIs) in the path of orbiting space objects are monitored by the HF radar backscatter and by in situ electron density probes. Space debris and satellites moving through these irregularities and can excite plasma emissions such as whistler, compressional Alfven, or lower hybrid waves. Orbital kinetic energy is the source of lower hybrid waves which is converted into an electromagnetic plasma oscillation when a charged space object encounters a field aligned irregularity (FAI). Such compressional Alfven wavs and whistlers propagate undamped at between 400 and 9000 km/s from the source regions and can be detected at ranges up to 50 km.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpace Satellite Systems and ControlFrench-language works237,207