MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2504723191

Using Outcrop Exposures on the Road to Yellowknife Bay to Build a Stratigraphic Column, Gale Crater, Mars

2013· article· en· W2504723191 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
K. M. Stack, J. P. Grotzinger, D. Y. Sumner, B. L. Ehlmann, R. E. Milliken, J. L. Eigenbrode, Sanjeev Gupta, R. M. E. Williams, Linda C. Kah, K. W. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueLunar and Planetary Science Conference · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutcropGeologyStratigraphyContext (archaeology)Impact craterPaleontologyBayMars Exploration ProgramLineationGeomorphologyAstrobiologyOceanographyTectonics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since landing in Gale Crater on August 5, 2012, the Curiosity rover has driven 450 m east, descending approximately 15 m in elevation from the Bradbury landing site to Yellowknife Bay. Outcrop exposure along this drive has been discontinuous, but isolated outcrops may represent windows into underlying inplace stratigraphy. This study presents an inventory of outcrops targeted by Curiosity (Figs. 1-2), grouped by lithological properties observed in Mastcam and Navcam imagery. Outcrop locations are placed in a stratigraphic context using orbital imagery and first principles of stratigraphy. The stratigraphic models presented here represent an essential first step in understanding the relative age relationships of lithological units encountered at the Curiosity landing site. Such observations will provide crucial context for assessing habitability potential of ancient Gale crater environments and organic matter preservation.

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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLunar and Planetary Science ConferenceSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207