MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969388886 · doi:10.1029/2019gl082764

Mars Science Laboratory Observations of Chloride Salts in Gale Crater, Mars

2019· article· en· W2969388886 on OpenAlexaff
N. H. Thomas, B. L. Ehlmann, Pierre‐Yves Meslin, W. Rapin, D. E. Anderson, F. Rivera‐Hernández, O. Forni, Susanne Schröder, A. Cousin, N. Mangold, R. Gellert, O. Gasnault, R. C. Wiens

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersCalifornia Institute of TechnologyNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHaliteGeologyMars Exploration ProgramGeochemistrySedimentary rockImpact craterEvaporiteDiagenesisAeolian processesMineralogyAstrobiologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity rover is traversing a sequence of stratified sedimentary rocks in Gale crater that contain varied eolian, fluviodeltaic, and lake deposits, with phyllosilicates, iron oxides, and sulfate salts. Here, we report the chloride salt distribution along the rover traverse. Chlorine is detected at low levels (<3 wt.%) in soil and rock targets with multiple MSL instruments. Isolated fine‐scale observations of high chlorine (up to ≥15 wt.% Cl), detected using the ChemCam instrument, are associated with elevated Na2O and interpreted as halite grains or cements in bedrock. Halite is also interpreted at the margins of veins and in nodular, altered textures. We have not detected halite in obvious evaporitic layers. Instead, its scattered distribution indicates that chlorides emplaced earlier in particular members of the Murray formation were remobilized and reprecipitated by later groundwaters within Murray formation mudstones and in diagenetic veins and nodules.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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

Citations81
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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