MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138401170 · doi:10.1002/2013gl058909

The timing of alluvial activity in Gale crater, Mars

2014· article· en· W2138401170 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. A. Grant, Sharon A. Wilson, N. Mangold, F. J. Calef, J. P. Grotzinger

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJet Propulsion LaboratoryNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsImpact craterGeologyNoachianHesperianMars Exploration ProgramFluvialAlluvial fanAlluviumAstrobiologySedimentary depositional environmentEarth scienceDiagenesisGeomorphologyPaleontologyGeochemistrySedimentary rockMartian

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Curiosity rover's discovery of rocks preserving evidence of past habitable conditions in Gale crater highlights the importance of constraining the timing of responsible depositional settings to understand the astrobiological implications for Mars. Crater statistics and mapping reveal the bulk of the alluvial deposits in Gale, including those interrogated by Curiosity , were likely emplaced during the Hesperian, thereby implying that habitable conditions persisted after the Noachian. Crater counting data sets and upper Peace Vallis fan morphology also suggest a possible younger period of fluvial activation that deposited ~10–20 m of sediments on the upper fan after emplacement of the main body of the fan. If validated, water associated with later alluvial activity may have contributed to secondary diagenetic features in Yellowknife Bay.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations110
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207