MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784048515 · doi:10.3390/geosciences8010015

Oxygen Isotope Thermometry of DaG 476 and SaU 008 Martian Meteorites: Implications for Their Origin

2018· article· en· W2784048515 on OpenAlexaff
Arshad Ali, Iffat Jabeen, Sobhi Nasir, Neil R. Banerjee

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeteoriteMartianPyroxeneOlivineMantle (geology)GeologyPartial meltingGeochemistryAstrobiologyIsotopes of oxygenChondriteMars Exploration ProgramMineralogyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the equilibration temperatures derived from the oxygen isotope thermometry of pyroxene-olivine pair from the Dar al Ghani (DaG) 476 (1200 +105/−90 °C) and Sayh al Uhaymir (SaU) 008 (1430 +220/−155 °C) meteorites showing a difference of over 200 °C at the face values. Regardless of the large associated uncertainties, contrasting geochemical and isotopic characteristics such as oxygen fugacities, hydrogen isotopic compositions (referred to as the D/H ratios), olivine abundances, presence of merrillite and/or apatite, and their chlorine contents between the two meteorites are observed in the literature. These opposing features lend support to the idea that the relative difference observed in the estimated temperatures is probably real and significant, thus providing insights into the Martian mantle magmatism. Based on our temperature estimation and previous magmatic models, we propose that SaU 008 could have been originated from a deeper depleted mantle source. However, DaG 476 may have been produced by the partial melting of the entrained pockets of the depleted mantle similar to that of the SaU 008’s source at a relatively shallower depth. Both meteorites erupted as a relatively thick lava flow or a shallow intrusion at approximately the same time followed by a launch initiated by a single meteoritic impact 1.1 million years (Ma) ago.

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)0.000
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 score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeosciencesSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207