Modeling the Stability of Ontario Lacus on Titan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".