Bibliographic record
Abstract
We constructed detailed geologic maps of channels within three widely separated regions using Magellan synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery and altimetry radar data in order to understand the operative processes involved in Venusian channel formation. Channels in each region cut topographic highs including ridges and shield edifices with no deflection of the channel course by surface topography. We argue that these relationships are difficult to reconcile with the widely held view that Venusian channels represent surface processes, whether constructional or erosional. We conclude that the channels evolved through subsurface fluid flow, which involved local stoping and transport of overlying material; that is, these channels were carved from below, rather than from above. We postulate that at least some Venusian channels form because of subsurface fluid flow along a shallow crustal interface that forms the boundary between overlying low backscatter surface materials and underlying basal materials. Fluid movement along the interface may facilitate piecemeal stoping and erosion of the local surface materials from below, eventually resulting in the formation of channel traces exposed at the surface. The low backscatter material which hosts the channels in this study also hosts abundant coalescing shields and associated deposits, which may represent shield terrain.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".