Characteristics, Origins, and Biosignature Preservation Potential of Carbonate‐Bearing Rocks Within and Outside of Jezero Crater
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbonate minerals have been detected in Jezero crater, an ancient lake basin that is the landing site of the Mars 2020 Perseverance rover, and within the regional olivine-bearing (ROB) unit in the Nili Fossae region surrounding this crater. It has been suggested that some carbonates in the margin fractured unit, a rock unit within Jezero crater, formed in a fluviolacustrine environment, which would be conducive to preservation of biosignatures from paleolake-inhabiting lifeforms. Here, we show that carbonate-bearing rocks within and outside of Jezero crater have the same range of visible-to-near-infrared carbonate absorption strengths, carbonate absorption band positions, thermal inertias, and morphologies. Thicknesses of exposed carbonate-bearing rock cross-sections in Jezero crater are ∼75-90 m thicker than typical ROB unit cross-sections in the Nili Fossae region, but have similar thicknesses to ROB unit exposures in Libya Montes. These similarities in carbonate properties within and outside of Jezero crater is consistent with a shared origin for all of the carbonates in the Nili Fossae region. Carbonate absorption minima positions indicate that both Mg- and more Fe-rich carbonates are present in the Nili Fossae region, consistent with the expected products of olivine carbonation. These estimated carbonate chemistries are similar to those in martian meteorites and the Comanche carbonates investigated by the Spirit rover in Columbia Hills. Our results indicate that hydrothermal alteration is the most likely formation mechanism for non-deltaic carbonates within and outside of Jezero crater.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".