MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lithification Mechanisms for Planetary Regoliths: The Glue that Binds

2016· article· en· W2346801628 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersCanadian Space AgencyJohnson Space CenterNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsRegolithAstrobiologyGeologyLithificationMars Exploration ProgramBrecciaPlanetary surfaceCrustVenusGeophysicsGeochemistrySedimentary rock

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is understood how rocks are made on Earth. However, on the Moon, Mercury, and, to a lesser extent, Mars and Venus, there are distinct rock-forming processes that we do not fully comprehend. The surfaces and crusts of the inner planetary bodies may retain a history of disruption by hypervelocity impact resulting in the generation of disaggregated materials to several kilometers depth. The uppermost component of this is called regolith (typically <20 m thick on the Moon), which is part of a more extensive megaregolith that is up to tens of kilometers thick, and which in places may pervade the entire crust of a planetary body. It is from these pulverized materials that new rocks are reaggregated to form so-called breccias. This work reviews regolith and megaregolith structure for the inner planetary bodies and investigates how extraterrestrial breccias are produced. Three principal formation mechanisms are explored: thermal sintering, shock sintering, and the dynamic interaction of impact-generated melt with fragmental material.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.225 · 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