Recognition Criteria of Spring Deposits on Mars at all Scales: Evidence from the Dalhousie Springs Analog (Australia)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Potential martian spring deposits are of considerable interest [1, 2] as indicators of water and the nature of the subsurface environment and as possible sites for preserved evidence of microbial communities. They are therefore attractive targets for exploration with Rovers, sample return missions [3], and eventually crewed exploration. The Dalhousie Springs Complex (DSC) in central Australia is arguably one of Earth’s largest groundwater discharge features, and is part of the Great Artesian Basin (GAB). The discharge points are marked by spring mounds of precipitated and trapped sediment. The hydrology, geomorphology, and deposits of the DSC therefore hold considerable significance as potential Mars analogues [4, 5, 6]. Recognition of spring deposits: Deposits at the DSC have a suite of distinctive characteristics evident at a range of scales that allows their recognition. These characteristics are found in all large scale spring deposits of the GAB [7] and but are also found elsewhere [8, 9] suggesting that they may have wider applicability. These are organized below from largest to smallest scale features [10]:
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".