Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The Mars surface/near‐surface is often considered to be biocidal. Here, diverse lines of evidence are presented indicating that some terrestrial microbes can survive the in‐situ conditions albeit in an inactive state. For the purposes of planetary protection, it is important to consider what we mean by a planetary ‘surface’; this term has qualitatively distinct definitions fordifferent scientific disciplines, and can also have different meanings from a humanviewpoint versus that of a microbial cell. Most microbial cells spores or other cells deposited on Mars, even those that initially fall on the outward‐facing part of the absolute surface, will fall within pores of the regolith or become covered by its dust. They are, therefore, protected from ultra‐violet radiation. Desiccating conditions and low temperatures (−40 to −70°C) can act to preserve rather than kill all microbes, potentially maintaining cellular viability – especially for certain extremophiles – over geological timescales. Whereas salts are ubiquitous on Mars, many terrestrial microbes are highly tolerant to NaCl and other salts, and these substances (including potentially inhibitory chaotropes such as MgCl 2 and perchlorates) cannot access cells in the absence of a liquid milieu. Whereas the Mars regolith is nutrient‐deplete and conditions may be acidic in places, oligotrophic conditions per se are not biocidal and many terrestrial microbes can thrive in acidic conditions (some acidophiles can proliferate at or below pH 0). The low temperatures of Mars' surface are not conducive to metabolic activity, but the biophysical sophistication and robust stress biology of many terrestrial microbes, and the protection afforded by Martian conditions, are likely to ensure the long‐term viability of some extremophilic microbes if transported to Mars.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".