MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143569822 · doi:10.1061/9780784479179.018

Lunar Cold Trap Contamination by Landing Vehicles

2015· article· en· W2143569822 on OpenAlexfundno aff
S. T. Shipley, Philip T. Metzger, John E. Lane

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsImpact craterRegolithPlumeCold trapAstrobiologyEjectaDeposition (geology)Trap (plumbing)Environmental scienceContaminationGeologyMeteorologyChemistryPhysicsEnvironmental engineeringSedimentGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emerging interest in lunar mining poses a threat of contamination to pristine craters at the lunar poles, which act as “cold traps” for water and may harbor other valuable minerals. The KSC Granular Mechanics and Regolith Operations Lab tools have been expanded to address the probability for contamination of these pristine “cold trap” craters. Trajectory simulations of rocket plume ejecta have been mapped onto cold trap craters to predict deposition for expected lunar landings. The processes addressed are now expanded to address the migration of volatiles over the lunar surface, and deposition into cold traps assuming that the collection efficiency of the 40K cold trap surfaces is 100%. Landing nearby such a crater will result in the deposition of significant exhaust plume gas into the cold trap portion of the crater, and may also create an unnatural atmosphere over the volatile reservoirs that are to be studied.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207