The history of the core dynamos of Mars and the Moon inferred from their crustal magnetization: a brief review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The core dynamos of Mars and the Moon have distinctly different histories. Mars had no core dynamo at the end of accretion. It took ∼100 Myr for the core to create a strong dynamo that magnetized the martian crust. Giant impacts during 4.2–4.0 Ga crippled the core dynamo intermittently until a thick stagnant lithosphere developed on the surface and reduced the heat flux at the core–mantle boundary, killing the dynamo at ∼3.8 Ga. On the other hand, the Moon had a strong core dynamo at the end of accretion that lasted ∼100 Myr and magnetized its primordial crust. Either precession of the core or thermochemical convection in the mantle or chemical convection in the core created a strong core dynamo that magnetized the sources of the isolated magnetic anomalies in later times. Mars and the Moon indicate dynamo reversals and true polar wander. The polar wander of the Moon is easier to explain compared to that of Mars. It was initiated by the mass deficiency at South Pole Aitken basin, which moved the basin southward by ∼68° relative to the dipole axis of the core field. The formation of mascon maria at later times introduced positive mass anomalies at the surface, forcing the Moon to make an additional ∼52° degree polar wander. Interaction of multiple impact shock waves with the dynamo, the abrupt angular momentum transfer to the mantle by the impactors, and the global overturn of the core after each impact were probably the factors causing the dynamo reversal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".