MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965063283 · doi:10.1029/2007je002967

Simulating Martian boundary layer water ice clouds and the lidar measurements for the Phoenix mission

2008· article· en· W1965063283 on OpenAlexaff
J. Pathak, Diane V. Michelangeli, L. Komguem, J. A. Whiteway, L. K. Tamppari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhoenixMartianLidarWater iceBoundary layerGeologyMars Exploration ProgramAstrobiologyRemote sensingPlanetary boundary layerAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceAerospace engineeringGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diurnal variation of ground fog and water ice cloud formation at the NASA Phoenix lander site is investigated using a one‐dimensional Mars Microphysical Model (MMM) coupled with the results from the one‐dimensional University of Helsinki atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) model. Phoenix is scheduled to reach Mars in May 2008 and land in the northern plains (65°–72°N). Observations from Mars Global Surveyor Thermal Emission Spectrometer for the proposed landing site and season Ls = 76°–125° have been used for the model initialization, both in the ABL and MMM. The diurnal variations of temperature and eddy diffusion coefficients produced by the uncoupled ABL are then applied to the MMM. Extinction and backscattering coefficients and lidar ratios are presented for the simulated dust and water ice clouds at the Phoenix location. Results of the dust and ice clouds are then used to simulate the Phoenix lidar measurements at two wavelengths, 532 and 1064 nm.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207