Composition of conglomerates analyzed by the Curiosity rover: Implications for Gale Crater crust and sediment sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Curiosity rover has analyzed various detrital sedimentary rocks at Gale Crater, among which fluvial and lacustrine rocks are predominant. Conglomerates correspond both to the coarsest sediments analyzed and the least modified by chemical alteration, enabling us to link their chemistry to that of source rocks on the Gale Crater rims. In this study, we report the results of six conglomerate targets analyzed by Alpha‐Particle X‐ray Spectrometer and 40 analyzed by ChemCam. The bulk chemistry derived by both instruments suggests two distinct end‐members for the conglomerate compositions. The first group (Darwin type) is typical of conglomerates analyzed before sol 540; it has a felsic alkali‐rich composition, with a Na2O/K2O > 5. The second group (Kimberley type) is typical of conglomerates analyzed between sols 540 and 670 in the vicinity of the Kimberley waypoint; it has an alkali‐rich potassic composition with Na2O/K2O < 2. The variety of chemistry and igneous textures (when identifiable) of individual clasts suggest that each conglomerate type is a mixture of multiple source rocks. Conglomerate compositions are in agreement with most of the felsic alkali‐rich float rock compositions analyzed in the hummocky plains. The average composition of conglomerates can be taken as a proxy of the average igneous crust composition at Gale Crater. Differences between the composition of conglomerates and that of finer‐grained detrital sediments analyzed by the rover suggest modifications by diagenetic processes (especially for Mg enrichments in fine‐grained rocks), physical sorting, and mixing with finer‐grained material of different composition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".