MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087466781 · doi:10.1029/2020je006465

The Line‐of‐Sight Extinction Record at Gale Crater as Observed by MSL's Mastcam and Navcam through ∼2,500 Sols

2020· article· en· W3087466781 on OpenAlexaff
C. L. Smith, M. T. Lemmon, John E. Moores, Scott D. Guzewich, T. H. McConnochie, Claire Newman, Alain Khayat, J. Michael Battalio, Casey A. Moore, D. Ellison

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Planets · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsExtinction (optical mineralogy)Impact craterLine-of-sightElevation (ballistics)GeologyAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental sciencePhysicsAstrophysicsAstronomyMineralogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Mars Science Laboratory rover (Curiosity) has monitored the line‐of‐sight extinction within Gale Crater since mission sol 100 (16 November 2012, MY 31 L s 208°) with Navcam and since mission sol 1,187 (8 December 2015, MY 33 L s 79°) with the color imager, Mastcam. This work reports 1,375 sols ( > 2 MYs) of line‐of‐sight extinction monitoring within Gale Crater with Mastcam and updates the Navcam line‐of‐sight extinction record to sol 2,556 (15 October 2019, MY 35 L s 93°). A cyclical pattern with one or more peaks in the dusty season ( L s ∼ 180–360°) and a trough in the less‐dusty season ( L s ∼ 0–180°) was observed with both imagers and the results from Mastcam red and Navcam agree well. Green and blue filter Mastcam data show generally lower extinction than in the red filter data. Extinction as a function of azimuth and elevation angle were investigated and the extinction as a function of azimuth was generally found to be smooth and thus the dust well‐mixed horizontally. The extinction as a function of elevation shows increased dust loading at lower elevations during dusty seasons, indicative of dust lifting from the base of the crater.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research PlanetsSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207