Understanding Martian Alteration Processes by Comparing In-Situ Chemical Measurements from Multiple Landing Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Characterizing the history of aqueous activity at the martian surface has been an objective of the Mars Exploration Rovers (MER) and the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL). Although the geologic context of the three landing sites are different, comparisons across the datasets can provide greater insight than using data from one mission alone. The Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer (APXS) is common to all three rovers (Spirit at Gusev crater, Opportunity at Meridiani Planum, and Curiosity at Gale crater) and provides a consistent basis for these comparisons. Soil and Dust: Fine grained basaltic soils and dust are remarkably uniform in chemical composition across multiple landing sites. These similarities in the concentrations of major, minor, and a few trace elements (Fig. 1) are indicative of planet-wide consistency in the composition of source materials for the soils. S and Cl vary by a factor of two in the soil and dust, but there is no clear association with any bulk cation (e.g., no correlation between S and total Ca, Mg, or Fe in soils). These volatile elements, however, are clearly associated with the nanophase-ferric iron component in the soil established by Mossbauer spectroscopy [1,2]. S and Cl likely originated as acidic species from volcanic out-gassing and subsequently coalesced on dust and sand grain surfaces, possibly with an affinity towards Fe3+ sites. Importantly, given the mobility of S and Cl in aqueous exposures, soil samples maintaining the typical molar S/Cl ratio of ~3.7:1 indicate minimal interactions with liquid water after the addition of S and Cl. In contrast to this well-established baseline, soil samples have been discovered at all three landing sites with atypical S/Cl ratios (e.g., subsurface soils), indicative of a more complex aqueous history.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".