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 L s = 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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