MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762226624 · doi:10.1002/2017je005334

The Evolution of Juventae Chasma, Valles Marineris, Mars: Progressive Collapse and Sedimentation

2017· article· en· W2762226624 on OpenAlexafffund
Frank Fueten, Nevena Novakovic, Robert Stesky, J. Flahaut, Ernst Hauber, Angelo Pio Rossi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Planets · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutions3M (Canada)Brock University
FundersFreie Universität BerlinNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesEuropean Commission
KeywordsGeologyMars Exploration ProgramPlateau (mathematics)Structural basinDeposition (geology)GeomorphologyPaleontologySedimentationSedimentGeochemistryAstrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Juventae Chasma is an isolated chasm located north of the interconnected chasms within Valles Marineris. It contains four separate interior layered deposit (ILD) mounds. We have combined layer measurements, as well as mineralogical data of the mounds with topographic data of the remaining chasm and the surrounding plateau. Our observations indicate that the chasm underwent a complex geological history. We suggest that individual ILD mounds are not contemporaneous with each other and a series of progressive collapses enlarged an initially smaller chasm to its current shape. ILDs were deposited in a lacustrine setting, and the time of ILD deposition was limited. Basin collapse and chasm enlargement continued beyond the time of ILD deposition and thus were not driven by sediment load. Glacial processes appear to have played a role in the late, postlacustrine history of the chasm. We present a simplified model that highlights some of the complexity of the chasm evolution, but acknowledge that the true history is undoubtedly more complicated.

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 score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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