MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W175336666

Modeling the Stability of Ontario Lacus on Titan

2011· article· en· W175336666 on OpenAlex
A. Luspay‐Kuti, E. G. Rivera‐Valentín, Nitish Chopra, V. F. Chevrier

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLunar and Planetary Science Conference · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyTitan (rocket family)ShoreMethaneGeochemistryAstrobiologyChemistryPhysicsOceanography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Since the arrival of the CassiniHuygens mission to the Saturn system, numerous liquid-filled lakes have been identified to date. The area of the lakes vary between <10 km to over 100,000 km [1]. The largest of them in the south polar region is Ontario Lacus, that was first identified as a radar dark feature having low reflectivity and smooth, rounded boundary, resembling shorelines on Earth. During the T38 flyby, Brown et al. 2008 [2] identified absorption features characteristic of ethane in VIMS spectra in Ontario Lacus, probably present in liquid solution with methane, nitrogen and other low molecular-weight hydrocarbon species. However, the chemical composition of the lakes is still under debate and is a challenge to determine precisely, partially because of the strong atmospheric absorption of CH4. Cordier et al. 2009 [3] proposed that the lakes are indeed composed of CH4 to a large extent (∼5-10%), following C2H6. The first detailed geometric analysis of Ontario Lacus’ shore reveals two distinct annuli around the lakebed itself, indicating shoreline variations over time [4]. Moriconi et al. 2010 [5] characterized Ontario Lacus and its adjacent regions with three distinct regions based on VIMS data in the 5 μm spectral window: the lake itself, which appears to be dark as a result of nearly full extinction of solar radiation, a dark-gray ”ramp”, most probably adequate with exposed lakebed sediments, and a bright, outer irregular ridge. It was also proposed that the weak C2H6 absorption feature detected by Brown et al. 2008 [2] at shorter wavelengths is rather present in the region adjacent to the lake [5]. The supposed lakebed sediments may have been exposed by seasonal evaporation of methane and is indicative of lake level change over time [4]. Furthermore, the asymmetric morphology of Ontario Lacus found by Wall et al. 2009 [6] and the raised beach site on the north-eastern side also indicate former lake shorelines from times when the lake level was probably higher. Recent results of Wye et al. 2010 [7] estimate the maximum depth of Ontario Lacus to be 9 m, while depths over the rest of the lake are proposed to be less than 5 m. Figure 1: Radar image of Ontario Lacus, located at 72◦ S, 183◦ W. Credit: NASA/JPL.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.154 · 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