MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098933557

IAC-07-A5.2.03 ROBOTIC ASSISTANCE, MOBILITY & VISION SYSTEMS – ENABLING TECHNOLOGY FOR EARLY HUMAN-ROBOTIC LUNAR EXPLORATION

2008· article· en· W7098933557 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLinguistic Studies and Language Acquisition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChassisPlanetary explorationPlanetary surfaceSpace explorationField (mathematics)ProspectingSpace technologyRetroreflector
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 21 st Century, space exploration will focus on surface exploration, with human-robotic collaboration allowing extended-duration stays at challenging lunar and planetary sites. This paper focuses on three early phases of lunar exploration: (i) in-situ characterisation and site survey for science, prospecting and reconnaissance in advance of human sorties (ii) in-situ human sortie field assistance, and (iii) transport of samples, equipment and small-scale infrastructure. In particular two technologies relevant to these phases are examined: surface mobility and advanced vision. For surface mobility, three areas of MDA technology development are discussed: (i) rover chassis simulation and evaluation, (ii) chassis prototype construction and field testing, and (iii) autonomous rover navigation systems for localisation, motion estimation and path planning. An overview of recent activities is given, including the development of a prototype chassis in preparation for the ESA ExoMars mission, and field tests of camera- and lidar-based navigation technologies in partnership with Optech, NASA and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA). The application of vision systems for navigation, science, prospecting and site survey is discussed. The merits of camera- and lidar-based systems are summarized, along with their applicability to the Moon in rover-mounted and astronaut handheld scenarios. 1

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLinguistic Studies and Language AcquisitionFrench-language works237,207