MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7126172745 · doi:10.48512/xcv8518919

SHPO-CON-356: RE: Section 110 DOE, Minuteman Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) District and 39 Cold War Minuteman Facilities, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County

2020· article· en· W7126172745 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julianne Polanco

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Exploration and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMissileListing (finance)OfficerCold warBallistic missileQuarter (Canadian coin)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This document is a concurrence letter from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB). SHPO concurs with the evaluations submitted to this office regarding the Minuteman Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) District and 39 Cold War Minuteman Facilities. Ten of the thirty-nine Minuteman facilities are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and are contributors to the Minuteman ICBM district, while the remaining twenty-nine facilities are not eligible, individually or as elements of a district, due to either a lack of historic integrity or a lack of historical significance. The ten facilities determined eligible are LF-04, LF-08, LF-09, LF-22/LF-10, LF-26, MAF D-0, MAF E-0, MAF O1A, MAFO1B, and MAFO1E/O1C.The other LFs and LCFs, totaling ten, are not eligible, nor are the remaining 19 ancillary support facilities. Because the Minuteman ICBM district does not retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance, the district is not eligible for the NRHP.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2390.062

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.201 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicSpace Exploration and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207