MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515581021 · doi:10.1002/2016gl070612

On the origin of the ionosphere at the Moon using results from Chandrayaan‐1 S band radio occultation experiment and a photochemical model

2016· article· en· W2515581021 on OpenAlexaff
R. K. Choudhary, K. M. Ambili, Siddhartha Choudhury, M. B. Dhanya, Anil Bhardwaj

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIonosphereRadio occultationIonizationPhysicsIonOccultationElectron densityExosphereSolar windProtonAtmosphere (unit)Atomic physicsElectronPlasmaGeophysicsAstronomyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The origin of the Moon's ionosphere has been explored using Chandrayaan‐1 radio occultation (RO) measurements and a photochemical model. The electron density near the Moon's surface, obtained on 31 July 2009 (∼300 cm −3 ), is compared with results from a model which includes production and recombination of 16 ions, solar wind proton charge exchange, and the electron impact ionization. The model calculations suggest that in the absence of transport, inert ions, namely Ar + , Ne + , and He + , dominate lunar ionosphere (density ∼5 × 10 4 cm −3 ). Interaction with solar wind, however, leads to their complete removal (∼2–3 cm −3 ). Assuming the Moon's exosphere to have CO 2 , H 2 O, O, OH, H 2 , CH 4 , and CO molecules in addition to the inert gases, the model calculations suggest that the lunar ionosphere is dominated by molecular ions, namely H 2 O + , CO , and H 3 O + , with near‐surface density ∼250 cm −3 . We surmise that lunar ionosphere can be molecular in nature.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations41
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207