MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553861155 · doi:10.4271/2007-01-3240

Thermal Design and Analysis of the Phoenix Mars Lander Meteorological Instrument

2007· article· en· W1553861155 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stéphane Lapensée, Darius Nikanpour

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Design and Technology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space Agency
FundersJet Propulsion LaboratoryDalhousie University
KeywordsPhoenixMars Exploration ProgramMars landingAstrobiologyRemote sensingExploration of MarsEnvironmental scienceAerospace engineeringMeteorologyComputer scienceGeologyEngineeringGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Phoenix Mars Lander is scheduled to be launched in August 2007 and will land in the northern Vastitas Borealis region. The lander is equipped with a suite of instruments designed to investigate the mineralogy and geochemistry of the soil and to study the atmosphere. The Canadian Meteorological Instrument (MET) will measure the location and the extent of clouds and the distribution of scatterers in the atmosphere as well as measuring the air temperature and the barometric pressure. The MET will provide Canadian scientists with a unique opportunity to study the Martian atmosphere and enhance our understanding of the planet in key areas of Canadian expertise. The MET instrument is composed of multiple elements in order to fulfil the science objectives. The MET Light Imaging Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) will probe the atmosphere by sending out laser pulses and measuring the backscattered returns. The MET mast that is instrumented with three thermocouples will measure the atmosphere temperature at three different heights and a Tell Tale installed at the tip will measure wind speed and direction. The upper Payload Electronic Box (PEB) will house the MET barometric pressure sensor and the MET main electronics. This paper will describe Canada's participation in the mission, provide details about the instrument, and explain the rationale behind the thermal design. Furthermore, heat balance and transient results from detailed thermal analyses will be presented.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicSpacecraft Design and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207