Criteria for identifying and evaluating locations that could potentially host the Cosmic Explorer observatories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cosmic Explorer is a next-generation ground-based gravitational-wave observatory that is being designed in the 2020s and is envisioned to begin operations in the 2030s together with the Einstein Telescope in Europe. The Cosmic Explorer concept currently consists of two widely separated L-shaped observatories in the United States, one with 40 km-long arms and the other with 20 km-long arms. This order of magnitude increase in scale with respect to the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observatories will, together with technological improvements, deliver an order of magnitude greater astronomical reach, allowing access to gravitational waves from remnants of the first stars and opening a wide discovery aperture to the novel and unknown. In addition to pushing the reach of gravitational-wave astronomy, Cosmic Explorer endeavors to approach the lifecycle of large scientific facilities in a way that prioritizes mutually beneficial relationships with local and Indigenous communities. This article describes the (scientific, cost and access, and social) criteria that will be used to identify and evaluate locations that could potentially host the Cosmic Explorer observatories.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".