MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890765287 · doi:10.1029/2018gl079045

Water Abundance of Dunes in Gale Crater, Mars From Active Neutron Experiments and Implications for Amorphous Phases

2018· article· en· W2890765287 on OpenAlexaff
T. S. J. Gabriel, C. Hardgrove, S. Czarnecki, E. B. Rampe, W. Rapin, C. N. Achilles, Daniel L. Sullivan, S. Nowicki, L. M. Thompson, M. L. Litvak, И. Г. Митрофанов, Robert T. Downs

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersConnecticut Space Grant College ConsortiumNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsMars Exploration ProgramImpact craterGeologyBasaltAmorphous solidVolcanoAbundance (ecology)Albedo (alchemy)Crater lakeNeutronMineralogyAstrobiologyGeochemistryChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We report the water abundance of Bagnold Dune sand in Gale crater, Mars by analyzing active neutron experiments using the Dynamic Albedo of Neutrons instrument. We report a bulk water‐equivalent‐hydrogen abundance of 0.68 ± 0.15 wt%, which is similar to measurements several kilometers away and from those taken of the dune surface. Thus, the dune is likely dehydrated throughout. Furthermore, we use geochemical constraints, including bulk water content, to develop compositional models of the amorphous fraction for which little information is known. We find the amorphous fraction contains ∼26‐ to 64‐wt% basaltic glass and up to ∼24‐wt% rhyolitic glass, suggesting at least one volcanic source for the dune material. We also find a range of hydrated phases may be present in appreciable abundances, either from the incorporation of eroded aqueously altered sediments or the direct alteration of the dune sand.

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 score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations31
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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