Topographic characterization of lunar complex craters
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We use Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter topography data to revisit the depth ( d )‐diameter ( D ), and central peak height ( h cp )‐diameter relationships for fresh complex lunar craters. We assembled a data set of young craters with D ≥ 15 km and ensured the craters were unmodified and fresh using Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Wide‐Angle Camera images. We used Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter gridded data to determine the rim‐to‐floor crater depths, as well as the height of the central peak above the crater floor. We established power‐law d‐D and h cp ‐ D relationships for complex craters on mare and highlands terrain. Our results indicate that craters on highland terrain are, on average, deeper and have higher central peaks than craters on mare terrain. Furthermore, we find that the crater depths for both mare and highlands craters are significantly deeper than previously reported. This likely reflects the inclusion of transitional craters and/or older and/or modified craters in previous work, as well as the limitations of the stereophotogrammetric and shadow‐length data sets used in those studies. There is substantial variability in the depths and the central peak heights for craters in a given diameter range. We suggest that the differences in mean d and h cp as a function of crater diameter for highlands and mare craters result from differences in bulk physical properties of the terrain types, whereas the variability in d and h cp at a given diameter may reflect variations in impactor properties and impact parameters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it