A generational perspective over the new commercial space age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prospects of growing commercial space exploration entities in a new space age have raised concerns among several scholars, who have debated its ethical, legal, and environmental implications. However, few studies in the outer space social survey field have attempted to examine public attitudes towards this subject. Additionally, such analysis has thus far not been conducted with a comparison across age groups. Past age group analysis, when applied to different disciplines of space exploration such as supporting increased NASA funding, indicated differing attitudes among those who have experienced different eras of the history of American space exploration (space race, space shuttle era, and the commercial space age). For this reason, this study combined past findings and applied them to a more futuristic perspective through a quantitative correlational research method. It was predicted that this study’s three age groups’ (generations one–three) perceived understanding of future commercial space exploration defined by commercial space activities (space tourism, space colonization, harvesting of raw materials in outer space, and commercial government partnerships) would be affected because of generational bias. The 268 surveyed participants indicated that the opinion aspect of an age group’s perceived understanding was affected but not their self-assumed prior knowledge. Key findings were the eldest group’s (generation one) tendency to align with commercial government partnerships and the youngest group’s (generation three) tendency to align opposite to generation one in support of more historically futuristic concepts. The research findings could be applied to the public outreach programs of government space exploration entities such as NASA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".