MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613698762 · doi:10.1002/2016je005196

The structural, stratigraphic, and paleoenvironmental record exposed on the rim and walls of Iazu Crater, Mars

2017· article· en· W2613698762 on OpenAlexaff
K. E. Powell, R. E. Arvidson, M. Zanetti, E. A. Guinness, S. L. Murchie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Planets · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersWashington University in St. LouisNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsImpact craterGeologyEjectaMars Exploration ProgramGeochemistryBasaltOutcropCrustPaleontologyGeomorphologyAstrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Iazu is a 6.8 km diameter crater located ~25 km south of Endeavour Crater in Meridiani Planum, Mars. The asymmetrical ejecta deposit and crater shape demonstrate that Iazu was formed by the impact of a projectile moving from west to east at 20 to 30° above the horizontal. The crater rim and walls expose an ~115 m thick section of intact banded bright and dark Burns formation polyhydrated sulfate deposits that overlie a lower section of basaltic crust of unknown thickness that has been slightly altered to Fe 3+ ─Mg 2+ smectites. The lower section also exhibits several basaltic outcrops that are overlain by banded bright and dark layers similar in appearance to the bright and dark bands evident in the overlying Burns formation. We interpret the lower section as indicative of a transition from regional‐scale fluvial activity to accumulation of sulfate‐rich deposits, culminating in a thick overlying section of Burns formation strata. Banding in the Burns formation and underlying strata is inferred to be a consequence of periodic variations in sulfate‐forming depositional environments.

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 score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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