MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029866527 · doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2020.116364

Preservation of primordial signatures of water in highly-shocked ancient lunar rocks

2020· article· en· W3029866527 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Černok, M. Anand, X. Zhao, James Darling, L. F. White, A. Stephant, Joseph Dunlop, K. T. Tait, I. A. Franchi

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth and Planetary Science Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario MuseumUniversity of Toronto
FundersHorizon 2020Science and Technology Facilities CouncilEuropean CommissionNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsGeologyApatiteGeochemistryGabbroBasaltPlagioclasePyroxeneNoriteMineralogyOlivinePaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spurred by the discovery of water in lunar volcanic glasses about a decade ago, the accessory mineral apatite became the primary target to investigate the abundance and source of lunar water. This is due to its ability to contain significant amounts of OH in its structure, along with the widespread presence of apatite in lunar rocks. There is a general understanding that crustal cumulate rocks of the lunar magnesian (Mg) suite are better candidates for recording the original isotopic compositions of volatile elements in their parental melts compared to eruptive rocks, such as mare basalts. Consequently, water-bearing minerals in Mg-suite rocks are thought to be ideal candidates for discerning the primary hydrogen isotopic composition of water in the lunar interior. Mg-suite rocks and most other Apollo samples that were collected at the lunar surface display variable degrees of shock-deformation. In this study, we have investigated seven Apollo 17 Mg-suite samples that include troctolite, gabbro and norite lithologies, in order to understand if shock processes affected the water abundances and/or H isotopic composition of apatite. The measured water contents in apatite grains range from 31 to 964 ppm, with associated δD values varying between −535 ± 134‰ and +147 ± 194‰ (2σ). Considering the full dataset, there appears to be no correlation between H2O and δD of apatite and the level of shock each apatite grain has experienced. However, the lowest δD was recorded by individual, water-poor (<∼100 ppm H2O) apatite grains that are either directly in contact with an impact melt or in its proximity. Therefore, the low-δD signature of apatite could be a result of interactions with D-poor regolith (solar wind derived H), facilitated by shock-induced nanostructures that could have provided pathways for migration of volatiles. In contrast, in relatively water-rich apatites (>∼100 ppm H2O), regardless of the complexity of the shock-induced nanostructures, there appears to be no evidence of water-loss or alteration in their δD. The weighted average δD value of 24 such water-rich apatites is −192 ± 71‰, and, of all 36 analyzed spots is −209 ± 47‰, indistinguishable from that of other KREEPy lunar lithologies or the Earth's deep mantle. Despite experiencing variable degrees of shock-deformation at a later stage in lunar history, water-rich apatite in some of the earliest-formed lunar crustal material appears to retain the original isotopic signature of H in the Moon.

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 score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth and Planetary Science LettersSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207