MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125110417

Impact Ejecta Emplacement on Terrestrial Planets

2011· article· en· W3125110417 on OpenAlexaff
G. R. Osinski, L. L. Tornabene, R. A. F. Grieve

Bibliographic record

VenueLunar and Planetary Science Conference · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEjectaImpact craterGeologyAstrobiologyTerrestrial planetMars Exploration ProgramGeochemistryPlanetPetrologyAstronomyPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Impact cratering is one of the most fundamental processes responsible for shaping the surfaces of solid planetary bodies. One of the principal characteristics of impact events is the formation and emplacement of ejecta deposits, an understanding of which is critical for planetary exploration. Current models of ejecta emplacement, however, do not account for several important observations of ejecta deposits on the terrestrial planets, in particular, the presence of more than one layer of ejecta. Furthermore, there is also no universal model for the origin and emplacement of ejecta on different planetary bodies. We present a unifying working hypothesis for the origin and emplacement of ejecta on the terrestrial planets, in which the ejecta are emplaced in a multi-stage process. The generation of the continuous ejecta blanket occurs during the excavation stage of cratering, via the conventional ballistic sedimentation and radial flow model. This is followed by the emplacement of more melt-rich, ground-hugging flows – the “surface melt flow” phase – during the terminal stages of crater excavation and the modification stage of crater formation. Minor fallback occurs during the final stages of crater formation. Several factors will affect the final morphology and character of ejecta deposits. The volatile content and cohesiveness of the uppermost target rocks will significantly affect the runout distance of the ballistically emplaced continuous ejecta blanket, with impact angle also influencing the overall geometry of the deposits (e.g., the production of the characteristic butterfly pattern seen in very oblique impacts). Ejecta deposited during the surface melt flow stage is influenced by several factors, most importantly planetary gravity, surface temperature, and the physical properties of the target rocks. Topography and angle of impact play important roles in determining the final distribution of surface melt flow ejecta deposits with respect to the source crater. This working hypothesis of ballistic sedimentation and surface melt flow provides a framework in which observations of ejecta at impact craters can be compared and placed in the context of the respective terrestrial planets.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLunar and Planetary Science ConferenceSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207