MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096269566

and Space Administration

2014· article· en· W7096269566 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft and Cryogenic Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstronauticsSpace (punctuation)Administration (probate law)Agency (philosophy)Space programSpace technologySpace ShuttleSpace explorationSpace researchHubble space telescope
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maryland from October 3 1 through November 3,1994, was hosted by the Institute of Environmental Sciences (IES) and was supported by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA). These proceedings attest to the breadth of the conference; papers were presented on topics as diverse as materials degredation in low Earth orbit, the Martian environment and several aspects of the still commercially dominant geostationary orbit. A good cross section of the space flight community took advantage of the opportunity to get together, to share their experiences and to participate in the sessions addressed by three invited speakers. Frank Cepollina covered the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Servicing Mission; Paul Regeon of Clementine Program fame- the role of testing in the Deep Space Program Science Experiment and Alexander Makarov of the Russian Space Agency- the facilities and capabilities of the NIICHIMMASH Organization. Tours of NASA Goddard Space

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.808

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2410.181

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.176 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpacecraft and Cryogenic TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207