MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921384430 · doi:10.1111/maps.13232

The potential science and engineering value of samples delivered to Earth by Mars sample return

2019· article· en· W2921384430 on OpenAlexaff
D. W. Beaty, M. M. Grady, H. Y. McSween, E. Sefton‐Nash, Brandi L. Carrier, Francesca Altieri, Yuri Amelin, E. Ammannito, M. Anand, Liane G. Benning, J. L. Bishop, L. E. Borg, Dale Boucher, J. R. Brucato, H. Busemann, Kate Campbell, Arnaud Czaja, Vinciane Debaille, D. J. Des Marais, Mike Dixon, B. L. Ehlmann, Jack D. Farmer, David C. Fernández‐Remolar, J. Filiberto, Jennifer Fogarty, D. P. Glavin, Y. S. Goreva, L. J. Hallis, A. D. Harrington, Elisabeth M. Hausrath, C. D. K. Herd, B. Horgan, M. Humanyun, T. Kleine, Julie Kleinhenz, Rachel Mackelprang, N. Mangold, L. E. Mayhew, J. T. McCoy, F. M. McCubbin, S. M. McLennan, D. E. Moser, Frédéric Moynier, John F. Mustard, P. B. Niles, G. G. Ori, F. Raulin, Petra Rettberg, Michelle A. Rucker, Nicole Schmitz, S. P. Schwenzer, Mark A. Sephton, R. Shaheen, Z. D. Sharp, D. L. Schuster, Sandra Siljeström, CL Smith, J. Andy Spry, A. Steele, T. D. Swindle, I. L. ten Kate, Nicholas J. Tosca, Toshiaki Usui, Martin J. Van Kranendonk, M. Wadhwa, B. P. Weiss, S. C. Werner, F. Westall, Raymond M. Wheeler, J. Zipfel, María‐Paz Zorzano

Bibliographic record

VenueMeteoritics and Planetary Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMars Exploration ProgramSample (material)AstrobiologyValue (mathematics)EngineeringGeologyMathematicsPhysicsStatisticsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Executive summary provided in lieu of abstract.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.012

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations52
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeteoritics and Planetary ScienceSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207