MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045813275

Magnetization of Martian Lower Crust: Revisited

2006· article· en· W3045813275 on OpenAlexaff
J. Arkani‐Hamed

Bibliographic record

VenueAGU Fall Meeting Abstracts · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrustGeologyRemanenceMagnetizationGeophysicsHematiteUpper crustMars Exploration ProgramMartianMagnetic fieldMineralogyPhysicsAstrobiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[1] This paper examines the magnetization that can be acquired by the lower crust of Mars in the absence of a core field but in the presence of the magnetic field of the upper crust that is magnetized by the core field. A uniformly magnetized vertical prism of a square horizontal cross section is considered to be a magnetic source in the upper crust for simplicity. Three thicknesses of 40, 60, and 80 km and six horizontal dimensions of 180, 300, 600, 900, 1200, and 1500 km are considered for the prism. To estimate the upper limit for the contribution of the lower crust to the observed magnetic anomalies, a potentially magnetic layer of 100 km thickness is adopted. Coarse-grain hematite is uniformly distributed in the lower crust with 4, 10, 20, or 30% concentration of hematite. The first is equivalent to the oceanic extrusive basalt as far as its thermo-remanent magnetization (TRM) is concerned. It is shown that the magnetization of the lower crust has minor effects on the strong magnetic anomalies of Mars over the southern hemisphere. However, if the lower crust has 20 to 30% coarse-grain hematite, which is highly unlikely, it may have appreciable contributions to small magnetic anomalies of Mars with horizontal dimensions smaller than 200 km.

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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAGU Fall Meeting AbstractsSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207