The Mars 2020 Candidate Landing Sites: A Magnetic Field Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an analysis of the remaining three candidate landing sites for Mars 2020, Columbia Hills (CH), Northeast Syrtis (NES) and Jezero (JE) from the perspective of understanding Mars' crustal magnetic field. We identify how the different sites can address each of six community‐defined paleomagnetic science objectives for Mars return samples. These objectives include understanding the early dynamo field and its variability, identification of magnetic minerals that carry magnetization in the samples, and characterization of any thermal and chemical alteration of samples. Satellite data have provided global and regional constraints on crustal magnetization, indicating strong magnetizations at CH, and weak to no magnetization at JE and NES. However, the primary paleomagnetic interest – understanding the early dynamo – requires ground truth from a landing site at which pre‐Noachian and early Noachian deposits are accessible. This requirement is most likely met by the site NES which contains meggabreccia deposits, and it is therefore the highest priority landing site for magnetic field investigations. Importantly, a sample return mission has never been done and so any of the three landing sites will provide critical, new data that will contribute to understanding the history of Mars' magnetic field and crustal mineralogy and, in turn, their constraints on the planet's evolution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".