Characterizing the Phyllosilicate Component of the Sheepbed Mudstone in Gale Crater, Mars Using Laboratory XRD and EGA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Curiosity rover investigated the mineralogy of the Sheepbed mudstone member of the Yellowknife Bay formation in Gale crater. Data from the Chemistry and Mineralogy (CheMin) X-ray diffractometer (XRD) helped identify phyllosilicates in the two drilled samples, John Klein and Cumberland. These patterns showed peaks at low angles, consistent with (001) peaks in 2:1 swelling phyllosilicates [1]. Evolved gas analyses (EGA) by the Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) instrument of these samples confirmed the presence of phyllosilicates through the release of H2O at high temperatures, consistent with dehydroxylation of octahedral OH in phyllosilicates [2]. CheMin data for the phyllosilicates at John Klein and Cumberland show that they are structurally similar in that their (02l) peaks are near 22.5 deg 2theta, suggesting both samples contain trioctahedral 2:1 phyllosilicates [1]. However, the positions of the (001) peaks differ: the phyllosilicate at John Klein has its (001) peak at 10 Angstroms, whereas the phyllosilicate at Cumberland has an (001) peak at 14 Angstroms. Such differences in (001) dspacings can be ascribed to the type of cation in the interlayer site [3]. For example, large monovalent cations (e.g., K(+)) have low hydration energies and readily lose their H2O of hydration, whereas small divalent cations (e.g., Mg(2+)) have high energies of hydration and retain H2O in the phyllosilicate interlayers [3,4]. The goal of this study is to determine whether differences in the interlayer cation composition can explain the CheMin data from John Klein and Cumberland and to use this knowledge to better understand phyllosilicate formation mechanisms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".