MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1666609200

Using Boundary-based Mapping Projections for Morphological Classification of Small Bodies

2008· article· en· W1666609200 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLunar and Planetary Science Conference · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeometryProjection (relational algebra)Boundary (topology)Orientation (vector space)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsComputer scienceAlgorithm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: We present a systematic approach to interpreting asteroid shape and surface morphology [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] using Constant Scale Natural Boundary (CSNB) map projection applied to Deimos, Phobos, Eros, and Ida. With the CSNB projection, the ridges and troughs, ‘event horizons’ acting as encoders of asteroid history, can be prominently featured as map edges at constant scale. For consistency and orientation, we locate the blunt ‘nose’ in the center of all maps in the equatorial plane, because most asteroids are elongated along the equatorial axis, and the blunt nose is a recognizable feature, but less morphologically complex than the ‘sharp’ end. The external boundaries then become the ridges connecting ‘peaks’, which typically run parallel to the equator, and troughs connecting ‘basins’, which typically separate the promontories. Three maps, two ridge-bound and one trough-bound, exist for each object (Figure on next page). Segmented maps (right column) show separation of the surface into geodesic ‘facets’, preserve resolution, and fold to a 3D facsimile of the asteroid. Compact maps (left colums) preserve orientation and are suitable for use as continuous maps with physical meaning to their edges. CSNB Map Comparison to other Projections: Understanding morphological patterns requires minimizing the distortion in important features. Simple cylindrical and mercator maps, although familiar and instantly orientating, produce great distortions, particularly for irregular objects and particularly at higher latitudes [9]. 3D mosaics require more than one view to illustrate what CSNB and conformal projections show in flat maps. CSNB projection combines the best features of 3D mosaics and conformal maps, emphasizing highly irregular faceted shape in one view, with minimal distortion, on a flat map. CSNB maps are designed to be conformal for antipodal areas and to preserve proportions in map interiors. The CSNB map shows the crater distribution, as well as the radial distribution of albedo and morphological features relative to the most prominent features, on one map. ‘Segmented’ CSNB projections preserve resolution as well. A disadvantage in use of the less traditional segmented CSNB projection is the vigilance required to keep track of features to allow orientation. Asteroid Morphology: Morphological parameters manifested in CSNB map shape include E/W and N/S distribution of segments, roughness of boundaries associated with each segment, and aspect ratios for each segment. Based on comparison of these parameters (see table below), Phobos and Deimos, are more spherical and regular than Eros or Ida, implying a more disruptive history for the latter two asteroids. Phobos is composed of considerably elongated segments, due to network of radial grooves extending from the Crater Stickney on the nose. Deimos and Eros show considerably greater asymmetry in the N/S directions. Eros and Ida both exhibit considerably more roughess on segment boundaries indicating that Deimos and Phobos, with their less disruptive facet boundaries, may be somewhat shielded from bombardment by the planet Mars. Asymmetry in Deimos shape is caused by the sharp, southward hooking nose in the equatorial region and the cavity, presumably formed by an impact event, near the south pole. References: [1] Clark C.S. (2002), LPS XXXIII, #1794; [2] Clark C.S. (2003) ISPRS, 34, XXX; [3] Clark P.E and Clark C.S. (2005) LPS XXXVI, #1423; [4] Thomas P. et al (2002) Icarus, 155, 1, 18-37; [5] http://near.jhuapl.edu; [6] Cheng A. and Barnouin-Jha O. (2002), LPS XXXIIII, #1522; [7] Oner A.T., http://www.solarviews.com/eng/asteroid.htm; [8] Stooke P., http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/geography/ spacemap/contents.htm; [9] Krantz S. (1999), American Scientist, 84, 436.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.122 · 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