Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigate the polar wander of Mars in the last ∼4.2 Ga. We identify two sets of basins from the 20 giant impact basins reported by Frey [Frey, H., 2008. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L13203] which trace great circles on Mars, and propose that the great circles were the prevailing equators of Mars at the impact times. Monte Carlo tests are conducted to demonstrate that the two sets of basins are most likely not created by random impacts. Also, fitting 63,771 planes to randomly selected sets of 5, 6, or 7 basins indicated that the identified two sets are unique. We propose three different positions for the rotation pole of Mars, besides the present one. Accordingly, Tharsis bulge was initially formed at ∼50 N and moved toward the equator while rotating counterclockwise due to the influence of the two newly forming volcanic constructs, Alba Patera and Elysium Rise. The formation of the giant impact basins, subsequent mass concentrations (mascons) in Argyre, Isidis, and Utopia basins, and surface masses of volcanic mountains such as Ascraeus, Pavonis, Arsia and Olympus, caused further polar wander which rotated Tharsis bulge clockwise to arrive at its present location. The extensive polar motion of Mars during 4.2–3.9 Ga implies a weak lithosphere on a global scale, deduced from a total of 72,000 polar wander models driven by Tharsis bulge, Alba Patera and Elysium Rise as the major mass perturbations. Different compensation states, 0–100%, are examined for each of the surface loads, and nine different thicknesses are considered for an elastic lithosphere. The lithosphere must have been very weak, with an elastic thickness of less than 5 km, if the polar wander was driven by these mass perturbations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".