MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416179592 · doi:10.25791/intstg.10.2025.1576

«КОСМОС-954» - ИСТОРИЯ ПАДЕНИЯ СПУТНИКА С ЯДЕРНЫМ РЕАКТОРОМ

2025· article· ru· W4416179592 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
С. БАТЧЕНКО В

Bibliographic record

VenueИстория науки и техники. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoviet unionDamagesDelegationNegotiationCrashSatellite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

В статье изучены подробности крушения советского спутника «Космос-954» на территории Канады в 1978 году. На основании документов Политбюро ЦК КПСС показана подготовка Советского Союза к падению спутника в течение 18 дней неконтролируемого спуска. Проанализирована реакция за рубежом, поэтапные требования возмещения ущерба с канадской стороны и директивные указания к переговорам для советской делегации. Кратко изложена дальнейшая история запуска спутников с ядерными реакторами в системе МКРЦ и влияние «канадского инцидента» на развитие международного космического права. The article examines the details of the crash of the Soviet satellite "Cosmos-954" in Canada in 1978. Based on the documents of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the preparation of the Soviet Union for the fall of the satellite during 18 days of uncontrolled descent is shown. The reaction abroad, step-by-step demands for damages from the Canadian side, and guidelines for negotiations for the Soviet delegation are analyzed. The further history of the launch of satellites with nuclear reactors in the MKRTz system and the impact of the "Canadian incident" on the development of international space law are briefly described.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueИстория науки и техники.Same topicSpace exploration and regulationFrench-language works237,207