MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793520109 · doi:10.1144/sp467.7

Periglacial complexes and the deductive evidence of ‘wet’-flows at the Hale impact crater, Mars

2018· article· en· W2793520109 on OpenAlexaff
R. J. Soare, Susan J. Conway, Colman Gallagher, J. M. Dohm, D. Reiss

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Special Publications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsDawson College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpact craterMars Exploration ProgramAstrobiologyGeologyEarth sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Hale impact crater is a large complex crater ( c. 150 × c. 125 km) in the southern hemisphere of Mars. Recurring slope lineae have been observed on its central-peak slopes, as have relatively youthful gully-like landforms; the latter are observed adjacent to or in the midst of the former, as well as on all of the rim-material slopes. Three of the gullied slopes on the northern-rim materials exhibit landscape features that, on Earth, are synonymous with wet periglaciation, i.e. landscape modification by the freeze–thaw cycling of water. These features include: (1) gelifluction-like lobes; (2) patches of surface polygonization, possibly underlain by ice wedges and formed by thermal-contraction cracking; and (3) shallow, rimless and polygonized basins morphologically akin to terrestrial alases. Here, we use the spatial association of the gully-like landforms together with the putatively wet periglacial assemblages or complexes to deduce and ascribe, albeit indirectly, a wet origin to the former.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London Special PublicationsSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207