MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884844075 · doi:10.1029/2018gl079025

Bagnold Dunes Campaign Phase 2: Visible/Near‐Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy of Longitudinal Ripple Sands

2018· article· en· W2884844075 on OpenAlexaff
J. R. Johnson, J. F. Bell, Steve Bender, E. A. Cloutis, B. L. Ehlmann, A. A. Fraeman, O. Gasnault, S. Maurice, P. Pinet, L. M. Thompson, Danika Wellington, R. C. Wiens

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersJet Propulsion LaboratoryCentre National d’Etudes Spatiales
KeywordsHematiteGeologyImpact craterMineralogyPhase (matter)Infrared spectroscopyInfraredGeochemistryChemistryOpticsAstrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As part of the Phase 2 Bagnold Dune campaign at Gale Crater, Mars, constraints on the geochemistry, mineralogy, and oxidation state of pristine and disturbed linear sand ripples were made using visible/near‐infrared spectral observations for comparison to Phase 1 spectra of the barchan dunes to the north. Spectra acquired by the ChemCam and Mastcam instruments (400–1,000 nm) at four Phase 2 locations revealed similar overall spectral trends between the two regions, but most Phase 2 sands were redder in the visible wavelengths. The majority of targets exhibited lower red/infrared ratios, higher ~530‐nm band depths, and higher red/blue ratios than Phase 1 samples, suggesting a greater proportion of redder, fine‐grained, ferric sands in Phase 2 samples. This is consistent with the slightly greater proportion of hematite in Phase 2 samples as determined from CheMin analyses of the Ogunquit sands, which may reflect contamination from the surrounding hematite‐bearing Murray formation bedrock.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.318 · 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.

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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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