MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762334003 · doi:10.1002/2017gl075207

Depth of Origin of the Peak (Inner) Ring in Lunar Impact Basins

2017· article· en· W2762334003 on OpenAlexaff
Katarina Miljković, M. Lemelin, P. G. Lucey

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersCurtin University of Technology
KeywordsGeologyImpact craterCrustMantle (geology)Structural basinGeophysicsImpact structureGeomorphologyAstrobiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Numerical modeling of the peak‐ring basin formation showed that the peak‐ring forms from the material that is part of the central uplift outwardly thrust over the inwardly collapsing transient crater rim. Simulations of the lunar basin formation showed that the peak or inner ring in peak ring or multiring basins, respectively, is composed of the overturned crust and deep‐seated material, possibly from the upper mantle. Numerical impact simulations were used to trace the depth of origin of material exposed within the peak (or inner) ring. We estimate the scaling trends between basin size and the depth of origin of material exposed within the ring. We also report on the likely crust, mantle, and projectile abundances exposed within the ring. Quantifying the excavation depths during the formation of the peak or inner ring provides a step toward understanding the lunar crust and mantle stratigraphy.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207