A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Processes: Letter Report
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the request of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Institute of Medicine (IOM) convened the Committee on the Review of NASA Human Research Program's (HRP's) Scientific Merit Assessment Processes in December 2011. The committee was asked to evaluate the scientific merit assessment processes that are applied to directed research tasks2 funded through the HRP and to determine best practices from similar assessment processes that are used in other federal agencies. This letter report and its recommendations are the product of a 10-member ad hoc committee, which included individuals who had previously conducted research under the HRP, were familiar with the HRP s research portfolio and operations, had specific knowledge of peer review processes, or were familiar with scientific merit assessment processes used in other organizations and federal agencies, such as the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); National Institutes of Health (NIH); National Science Foundation (NSF); and U.S. Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Defense (DOD), and Transportation.
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.
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 | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it