Convective vortices and dust devils at the MSL landing site: Annual variability
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two hundred fifty‐two transient drops in atmospheric pressure, likely caused by passing convective vortices, were detected by the Rover Environmental Monitoring Station instrument during the first Martian year of the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) landed mission. These events resembled the vortex signatures detected by the previous Mars landers Pathfinder and Phoenix; however, the MSL observations contained fewer pressure drops greater than 1.5 Pa and none greater than 3.0 Pa. Apparently, these vortices were generally not lifting dust as only one probable dust devil has been observed visually by MSL. The obvious explanation for this is the smaller number of strong vortices with large central pressure drops since according to Arvidson et al . [ ] ample dust seems to be present on the surface. The annual variation in the number of detected convective vortices followed approximately the variation in Dust Devil Activity (DDA) predicted by the MarsWRF numerical climate model. This result does not prove, however, that the amount of dust lifted by dust devils would depend linearly on DDA, as is assumed in several numerical models of the Martian atmosphere, since dust devils are only the most intense fraction of all convective vortices on Mars, and the amount of dust that can be lifted by a dust devil depends on its central pressure drop. Sol‐to‐sol variations in the number of vortices were usually small. However, on 1 Martian solar day a sudden increase in vortex activity, related to a dust storm front, was detected.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it