MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2534931660 · doi:10.1002/2016je005017

Discordant K‐Ar and young exposure dates for the Windjana sandstone, Kimberley, Gale Crater, Mars

2016· article· en· W2534931660 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paulo Vasconcelos, Kenneth A. Farley, C. A. Malespin, P. R. Mahaffy, D. W. Ming, S. M. McLennan, J. A. Hurowitz, M. S. Rice

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Planets · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCalifornia Institute of TechnologyJet Propulsion LaboratoryNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsSanidineGeologyMars Exploration ProgramK–Ar datingImpact craterMineralogyFractionationFeldsparAnalytical Chemistry (journal)GeochemistryPaleontologyChemistryAstrobiologyPlagioclasePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract K‐Ar and noble gas surface exposure age measurements were carried out on the Windjana sandstone, Kimberley region, Gale Crater, Mars, by using the Sample Analysis at Mars instrument on the Curiosity rover. The sandstone is unusually rich in sanidine, as determined by CheMin X‐ray diffraction, contributing to the high K 2 O concentration of 3.09 ± 0.20 wt % measured by Alpha‐Particle X‐ray Spectrometer analysis. A sandstone aliquot heated to ~915°C yielded a K‐Ar age of 627 ± 50 Ma. Reheating this aliquot yielded no additional Ar. A second aliquot heated in the same way yielded a much higher K‐Ar age of 1710 ± 110 Ma. These data suggest incomplete Ar extraction from a rock with a K‐Ar age older than 1710 Ma. Incomplete extraction at ~900°C is not surprising for a rock with a large fraction of K carried by Ar‐retentive K‐feldspar. Likely, variability in the exact temperature achieved by the sample from run to run, uncertainties in sample mass estimation, and possible mineral fractionation during transport and storage prior to analysis may contribute to these discrepant data. Cosmic ray exposure ages from 3 He and 21 Ne in the two aliquots are minimum values given the possibility of incomplete extraction. However, the general similarity between the 3 He (57 ± 49 and 18 ± 32 Ma, mean 30 Ma) and 21 Ne (2 ± 32 and 83 ± 24 Ma, mean 54 Ma) exposure ages provides no evidence for underextraction. The implied erosion rate at the Kimberley location is similar to that reported at the nearby Yellowknife Bay outcrop.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research PlanetsSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207