MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1609752349

Chemistry of Martian Soils from the Mars Exploration Rover APXS Instruments

2007· article· en· W1609752349 on OpenAlexaff
David W. Mittlefehldt, R. Gellert, A. S. Yen

Bibliographic record

VenueLunar and Planetary Science Conference · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeatheringImpact craterRegolithMartianAstrobiologyGeologyClastic rockEarth scienceMartian soilEjectaGeochemistryMars Exploration ProgramMartian surfaceVolcanismSoil waterMeteoriteMineralogySedimentary rockSoil sciencePaleontology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The martian surface is covered with debris formed by several mechanisms and mobilized by various processes. Volcanism, impact, physical weathering and chemical alteration combine to produce particles of sizes from dust to boulders composed of primary mineral and rock fragments, partially altered primary materials, alteration minerals and shock-modified materials from all of these. Impacts and volcanism produce localized deposits. Winds transport roughly sand-sized material over intermediate distances, while periodic dust storms deposit a global dust layer of the finest fraction. The compositions of clastic sediments can be used to evaluate regional differences in crustal composition and/or weathering processes. Here we examine the growing body of chemical data on soils in Gusev crater and Meridiani Planum returned by the Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer (APXS) instruments on the rovers Spirit (MERA) and Opportunity (MERB), following on earlier results based on smaller data sets [1-4].

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLunar and Planetary Science ConferenceSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207