MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1666609200

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

2008· article· en· W1666609200 on OpenAlexaff
P. E. Clark, C. S. Clark, Philip J. Stooke

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.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.159
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

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
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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLunar and Planetary Science ConferenceSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207