MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965411683 · doi:10.1029/2019gl083788

Visibility and Line‐of‐Sight Extinction Estimates in Gale Crater During the 2018/MY34 Global Dust Storm

2019· article· en· W2965411683 on OpenAlexaff
C. L. Smith, John E. Moores, M. T. Lemmon, Scott D. Guzewich, Casey A. Moore, D. Ellison, Alain Khayat

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpact craterEnvironmental scienceExtinction (optical mineralogy)Dust stormAtmospheric sciencesStormVisibilityGeologyClimatologyMeteorologyPhysicsOceanographyAstronomyMineralogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Northern line‐of‐sight extinction within Gale Crater during the 2018 global dust storm was monitored daily using Mars Science Laboratory's Navcam. Additional observations with Mastcam (north) and Navcam (all directions) were obtained at a lower cadence. Using feature identification and georeferencing, extinction was estimated in all possible directions. Peak extinction of >1.1 km −1 was measured between sols 2086 and 2090, an order of magnitude higher than previous maxima. Northern and western directions show an initial decrease, followed by a secondary peak in extinction, not seen in column opacity measurements. Due to foreground topography, eastern direction results are provided only as limits, and southern results were indeterminable. Mastcam red and green filter results agree well, but blue filter results show higher extinctions, likely due to low signal‐to‐noise. Morning results are systematically higher than afternoon results, potentially indicative of atmospheric mixing.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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