When BRITE was a solely Canadian project: The distant prehistory ...
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The BRITE project started with a call to me from Dr. R. Zee, the Director of the Space Flight Laboratory of the University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies (SFL-UTIAS), in 2002. The question was: "Can astronomy be done with a nano-satellite?" That is, a satellite weighing about 10 times less than the first Canadian astronomical satellite, MOST, which had been built at SFL and was to be launched in 2003. It was a timely question during a period of rapid miniaturization of components and rapidly increasing power of on-board detectors and computers. My answer was ready: "Yes, but the small telescope dimensions will limit the observation to the massive, most-luminous stars." This basic principle has been excellently confirmed by the BRITE Constellation. The original Canadian team utilized the SFL design of a single 20x20x20cm cube, single spectral-band CanX-3 (later renamed BRITE). It was the most complex nano-satellite at that time. Several applications to Canadian federal institutions in 2004 - 2006 failed to secure funds; they were first for a single spectral one-band, then for two satellites. The failure was mostly due to weak support from the Canadian astronomy community, which was awaiting MOST results. The great success of our Austrian colleagues of obtaining their own two-satellite funding in 2006, followed by a similar success in Poland in 2009, led to funding of the Canadian component of the BRITE Constellation in 2011. The six satellites were launched in 2013-2014.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.006 |
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".