MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lithification Mechanisms for Planetary Regoliths: The Glue that Binds

2016· article· en· W2346801628 on OpenAlexafffund
J. G. Spray

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.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations41
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Earth and Planetary SciencesSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207