MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405260700 · doi:10.1080/14777622.2024.2439789

Losing Our Dark Skies: The Space-Biased Medium of Satellite Megaconstellations

2024· article· en· W4405260700 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel P. Garland

Bibliographic record

VenueAstropolitics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace debrisSatelliteSkyScrutinyAstronomySpace (punctuation)PhysicsTelecommunicationsComputer scienceLawPolitical scienceSpacecraft

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the technological risk of communications satellites assembled into globally spanning arrays known as megaconstellations. SpaceX’s Starlink system is by far the largest, with the company having deployed several thousand units in low Earth orbit and planning to launch tens of thousands more. Starlink has been the subject of media scrutiny as light reflecting off these satellites, and the background electronic noise they emanate, impedes astronomical observation. Such infrastructure in increasingly crowded orbital shells is at a heightened risk of collision, which can break into smaller fragments and cause the proliferation of orbital space debris. The consequences of mounting economic pressures for satellite technologies is that Earth’s skies will be increasingly diffusely brightened, obscuring the cosmos and the stars. Without effective regulation on access to space and orbital debris, the dark nighttime sky, which has been shared for all of history, is threatened. To analyze this unfolding possibility induced by technological innovation, this article draws from Harold A. Innis’ theory of space-time bias to contend that communications satellite megaconstellations are a result of our modern civilization’s fixation with the present moment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.013
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueAstropoliticsSame topicSpace exploration and regulationFrench-language works237,207