MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413426447 · doi:10.3390/ceramics8030107

Ceramics—The Forgotten but Essential Ingredients for a Circular Economy on the Moon

2025· article· en· W4413426447 on OpenAlex
Alex Ellery

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCeramics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCircular economyAstrobiologyBusinessPhysicsBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Settlement on the Moon will require full exploitation of its resources if such settlements are to be permanent. Such in situ resource utilisation (ISRU) has primarily been focused on accessing water ice at the lunar poles and the use of raw lunar regolith as a compressive building material. Some work has also examined the extraction of metals, but there has been little consideration of the many useful ceramics that can be extracted from the Moon and how they may be fabricated. We introduce a strategy for full lunar industrialisation based on a circular lunar industrial ecology and examine the contribution of ceramics. We review ceramic fabrication methods but focus primarily on 3D printing approaches. The popular direct ink writing method is less suitable for the Moon and other methods require polymers which are scarce on the Moon. This turns out to be crucial, suggesting that full industrialisation of the Moon cannot be completed until the problem of ceramic fabrication is resolved, most likely in conjunction with polymer synthesis from potential carbon sources.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · 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