MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883464991 · doi:10.1029/2018gl079026

Chemical Diversity of Sands Within the Linear and Barchan Dunes of the Bagnold Dunes, Gale Crater, as Revealed by APXS Onboard Curiosity

2018· article· en· W2883464991 on OpenAlexafffund
C. D. O’Connell‐Cooper, L. M. Thompson, J. G. Spray, J. A. Berger, S. J. VanBommel, R. Gellert, E. Desouza

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and TechnologyCanadian Space AgencyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsGeologyWeatheringImpact craterMaficGeomorphologyBedformGeochemistryEarth scienceAstrobiologySediment transportSediment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Alpha Particle X‐ray Spectrometer (APXS) results for Phase 2 of the Bagnold Dunes campaign, focusing on the linear dunes, complement those from Phase 1 (barchan dunes) and add to our understanding of active Martian dune systems. This work highlights both compositional similarities and differences across the dune field. The concentration of elements associated with mafic minerals in coarser grains and along active ripple crests, previously identified in the barchan dunes, highlights differences in Martian and terrestrial weathering, transport, and sorting processes. Concentration of a Cr‐Ti mineral phase within the linear sands is identified. The inactive ripple fields are geochemically similar to soil, while active ripple fields are similar to sands. Inferred dust content (S + Cl + Zn concentrations), derived from APXS analyses, provide geochemical confirmation of current and seasonal activity variations, within the barchan and linear dunes, as well as revealing a continuum between inactive soils and active sands.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations32
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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