MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738005120 · doi:10.1089/ast.2016.1533

Habitability on Early Mars and the Search for Biosignatures with the ExoMars Rover

2017· article· en· W2738005120 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAstrobiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersAirbus Defense and SpaceScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsHabitabilityAstrobiologyExtraterrestrial lifeMars Exploration ProgramContext (archaeology)Life on MarsExploration of MarsPayload (computing)MartianMars roverExoplanetEarth scienceEnvironmental sciencePlanetGeologyComputer scienceAstronomyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The second ExoMars mission will be launched in 2020 to target an ancient location interpreted to have strong potential for past habitability and for preserving physical and chemical biosignatures (as well as abiotic/prebiotic organics). The mission will deliver a lander with instruments for atmospheric and geophysical investigations and a rover tasked with searching for signs of extinct life. The ExoMars rover will be equipped with a drill to collect material from outcrops and at depth down to 2 m. This subsurface sampling capability will provide the best chance yet to gain access to chemical biosignatures. Using the powerful Pasteur payload instruments, the ExoMars science team will conduct a holistic search for traces of life and seek corroborating geological context information. Key Words: Biosignatures—ExoMars—Landing sites—Mars rover—Search for life. Astrobiology 17, 471–510. Table of Contents 1. Article Organization 2. Introduction 2.1. ExoMars origin 2.2. A difficult adolescence 2.3. Joint program 3. Early Mars as an Exobiology Target 3.1. A first window of opportunity for life 3.2. Separate ways 3.2.1. Young Earth 3.2.2. Young Mars 3.2.3. Young Venus 3.3. Lessons for ExoMars: when and where? 4. Biosignatures: Which and How Reliable? 4.1. Morphological biosignatures 4.2. Chemical biosignatures 4.2.1. Isomerism selectivity 4.2.2. Molecular weight fingerprints 4.2.3. Bulk isotopic fractionation 4.3. Importance of geological context for boosting biosignature confidence 4.4. Life's decision points 4.5. Examples using the ExoMars biosignature score 4.5.1. Kitty's Gap, N.W. Australia 4.5.2. Josefsdal Chert, Barberton, South Africa 4.5.3. Martian Meteorite ALH84001 4.5.4. Yellowknife Bay, Mars 5. The Martian Environment and the Need for Subsurface Exploration 5.1. Results from previous missions 5.2. Degradation of organic matter 5.3. Access to molecular biosignatures 6. The ExoMars Rover and Its Pasteur Payload 6.1. From panoramic to molecular scale through nested investigations 6.2. Pasteur payload instruments 6.2.1. Panoramic camera system 6.2.2. IR spectrometer 6.2.3. Shallow ground-penetrating radar 6.2.4. Subsurface neutron detector 6.2.5. Close-up imager 6.2.6. Drill IR spectrometer 6.2.7. Subsurface drill 6.2.8. Sample preparation and distribution system 6.2.9. MicrOmega 6.2.10. Raman laser spectrometer 6.2.11. Mars organic molecule analyzer 6.3. The reference surface mission 7. A Suitable Landing Site 7.1. Scientific constraints 7.2. Engineering constraints 7.3. Planetary protection constraints 7.4. Possible locations for landing 7.4.1. Oxia Planum (18.159°N, 335.666°E; −3 km MOLA) 7.4.2. Mawrth Vallis (22.160°N, 342.050°E; −2 km MOLA) 8. Conclusions Acknowledgments Author Disclosure Statement References Abbreviations Used

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.224 · 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