MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2123185661 · doi:10.1029/2004je002295

On lateral mixing efficiency of lunar regolith

2005· article· en· W2123185661 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lin Li, John F. Mustard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsImpact craterRegolithEjectaMixing (physics)GeologyPower lawExponentGeometryPhysicsAstrobiologyAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To reexamine the potential for lateral mixing over large distances (>100 km) by impact craters, a mathematical model utilizing the stable probability distribution is proposed for estimating lateral mixing efficiency on the Moon. The proposed model divides material mixing into shallow slope and steep slope regimes. Mixing in the shallow slope regime conforms to the condition that the exponent of the power law describing lunar crater size frequency is larger than the exponent of the power law describing the rim thickness plus 2; otherwise the mixing is called the steep slope regime. The model suggests that in the shallow slope regime, lateral mixing on the Moon is efficient enough to deliver 20–30% exotic components over distances greater than 100 km (e.g., highland material to the mare). The model indicates that lateral mixing conforming to the steep slope regime is not efficient if linear addition of ejecta deposits is assumed because in this regime, impact cratering is driven by small craters reworking lunar surface, and the addition of crater ejecta is an invalid assumption. If the result of the proposed model for the shallow slope regime is applied to regolith layers below the reworked zone, a significant number of “exotic” components is predicted.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations33
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres→Same topicPlanetary Science and Exploration→French-language works237,207→