MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160349706 · doi:10.1029/2008gl035585

Paleointensity of the ancient Martian magnetic field

2008· article· en· W2160349706 on OpenAlexaff
B. P. Weiss, L. E. Fong, Hojatollah Vali, Eduardo A. Lima, Franz Baudenbacher

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMartianMeteoriteMars Exploration ProgramNatural remanent magnetizationGeologyGeophysicsAstrobiologyRemanencePaleomagnetismMagnetizationEarth's magnetic fieldEarth scienceMagnetic fieldPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mars today has no core dynamo magnetic field. However, the discovery of remanent magnetization in Martian meteorites and intense crustal magnetization suggests that Mars once had a global field. Here we present high resolution maps of the magnetic field of Martian meteorite ALH 84001. These maps are the most sensitive yet quantitative study of natural remanent magnetization (with resolved anomalies as weak as 1 × 10−14 Am2). ALH 84001 likely contains a 4 billion year old (Ga) thermoremanence partially overprinted by one or more poorly understood secondary components. Our data suggest that the paleointensity of the local paleofield was within an order of magnitude of that of the present‐day Earth. If this field were global in extent, it should have played a key role in Martian atmospheric and climatic evolution. However, it is still too weak to easily explain the intensity of Martian crustal paleomagnetic anomalies.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations76
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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