Bibliographic record
Abstract
This document has been approved for publication by the Management Council of the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) and reflects the consensus of technical panel experts from CCSDS Member Agencies. The procedure for review and authorization of CCSDS Reports is detailed in the Reference [40]. This document is published and maintained by: CCSDS Secretariat Program Integration Division (Code OI) National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546, USA CCSDS A30.0-G-1 ii November 1995 FOREWORD This document is a technical report which consolidates glossaries provided by the active technical panels of the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS). Through the process of normal evolution and the progress in the build-up of implementations, it is expected that modifications and expansions of this report will occur. This Report is therefore subject to CCSDS document management and change control procedures which are defined in Reference [40]. CCSDS A30.0-G-1 iii November 1995 At time of publication, the active Member and Observer Agencies of the CCSDS were Member Agencies -- British National Space Centre (BNSC)/United Kingdom. -- Canadian Space Agency (CSA)/Canada. -- Central Research Institute of Machine Building (TsNIIMash)/Russian Federation. -- Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES)/France. -- Deutsche Forschungsanstalt fr Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR)/Germany. -- European Space Agency (ESA)/Europe. -- Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE)/Brazil. -- National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA HQ)/USA. -- National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA)/Japan. Observer Agencies -- Australian Space Office (ASO)/Australia. -- Austrian Space Agency (ASA)/Austria. -- Belgian Science Policy Office (SPO)/Bel...
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".