Evolution of major sedimentary mounds on Mars: Buildup via anticompensational stacking modulated by climate change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a new database of >300 layer orientations from sedimentary mounds on Mars (Mount Sharp/Aeolis Mons, plus Nia, Juventae, Ophir, Ceti, Melas, Coprates, and Ganges Mensae). Together, these mounds make up ~ ½ of the total volume of canyon/crater‐hosted sedimentary mounds on Mars. The layer orientations, together with draped landslides, and draping of rocks over differentially eroded paleodomes, indicate that for the stratigraphically uppermost ~1 km, the mounds formed by the accretion of draping strata in a mound shape. The layer‐orientation data further suggest that layers lower down in the stratigraphy also formed by the accretion of draping strata in a mound shape. The data are consistent with terrain‐influenced wind erosion but inconsistent with tilting by flexure, differential compaction over basement, or viscoelastic rebound. We use a simple model of landscape evolution to show how the erosion and deposition of mound strata can be modulated by shifts in obliquity. The model is driven by multi‐Gyr calculations of Mars' chaotic obliquity and a parameterization of terrain‐influenced wind erosion that is derived from mesoscale modeling. The model predicts that Mars mound stratigraphy emerges from a drape‐and‐scrape cycle. Our results suggest that mound‐spanning unconformities with kilometers of relief emerge as the result of chaotic obliquity shifts. Our results support the interpretation that Mars' rocks record intermittent liquid‐water runoff during a ≫ 10 8 yr interval of sedimentary rock emplacement.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".