The AMADEE-18 Mars Analog Expedition in the Dhofar Region of Oman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From February 1 to 28, 2018, the Austrian Space Forum, in cooperation with the Oman Astronomical Society and research teams from 25 nations, conducted the AMADEE-18 mission, a human-robotic Mars expedition simulation in the Dhofar region in the Sultanate of Oman. A carefully selected field crew, supported by a Mission Support Center in Innsbruck, Austria, conducted 19 experiments relevant to astrobiology, engineering disciplines, geoscience, operations research, and human factors. This expedition was the 12th in a series of analog missions that emulate selected aspects of the science expected for a human Mars mission, including the characterization of the (paleo)geological environment, human factors studies, and the search for biomarkers. In particular, an Exploration Cascade was deployed as a suggested workflow for coordinating the timing and location of the respective instruments and experiments. In validation of this workflow, the decision-making interaction between the field and the Mission Support Center was studied. This article introduces the AMADEE-18 mission and provides the mission-specific context for the other contributions of this special issue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".