MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149955620 · doi:10.1029/2000je001444

Evidence for water ice near the lunar poles

2001· article· en· W2149955620 on OpenAlexaff
W. C. Feldman, S. Maurice, Robert Little, O M Gasnault, R. C. Wiens, B. L. Barraclough, T. H. Prettyman, A. B. Binder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsOlivieri Foods
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpact craterGeologyTerrainAstrobiologyHydrogenPolarAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceGeophysicsAstronomyPhysicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improved versions of Lunar Prospector thermal and epithermal neutron data were studied to help discriminate between potential delivery and retention mechanisms for hydrogen on the Moon. Improved spatial resolution at both poles shows that the largest concentrations of hydrogen overlay regions in permanent shade. In the north these regions consist of a heavily cratered terrain containing many small (less than ∼10‐km diameter), isolated craters. These border circular areas of hydrogen abundance ([H]) that is only modestly enhanced above the average equatorial value but that falls within large, flat‐bottomed, and sunlit polar craters. Near the south pole, [H] is enhanced within several 30‐km‐scale craters that are in permanent shade but is only modestly enhanced within their sunlit neighbors. We show that delivery by the solar wind cannot account for these observations because the diffusivity of hydrogen at the temperatures within both sunlit and permanently shaded craters near both poles is sufficiently low that a solar wind origin cannot explain their differences. We conclude that a significant portion of the enhanced hydrogen near both poles is most likely in the form of water molecules.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations377
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207