Convective vortices and dust devils at the Phoenix Mars mission landing site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Phoenix Mars Lander detected a larger number of short (∼20 s) pressure drops that probably indicate the passage of convective vortices or dust devils. Near‐continuous pressure measurements have allowed for monitoring the frequency of these events, and data from other instruments and orbiting spacecraft give information on how these pressure events relate to the seasons and weather phenomena at the Phoenix landing site. Here 502 vortices were identified with a pressure drop larger than 0.3 Pa occurring in the 151 sol mission (Ls 76 to 148). The diurnal distributions show a peak in convective vortices around noon, agreeing with current theory and previous observations. The few events detected at night might have been mechanically forced by turbulent eddies caused by the nearby Heimdal crater. A general increase with major peaks in the convective vortex activity occurs during the mission, around Ls = 111. This correlates with changes in midsol surface heat flux, increasing wind speeds at the landing site, and increases in vortex density. Comparisons with orbiter imaging show that in contrast to the lower latitudes on Mars, the dust devil activity at the Phoenix landing site is influenced more by active weather events passing by the area than by local forcing.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".