MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213720507 · doi:10.1029/2021je007011

Re‐Evaluation of Large Martian Ripples in Gale Crater: Granulometric Evidence for an Impact Mechanism and Terrestrial Analogues

2021· article· en· W3213720507 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler Gough, Chris H. Hugenholtz, Thomas E. Barchyn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Planets · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMars Exploration ProgramGeologyBedformImpact craterSedimentologyAeolian processesMartianScale (ratio)RippleAstrobiologyEarth scienceGeomorphologySediment transportPhysicsGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mars hosts three scales of superimposed aeolian bedforms: small decimeter‐scale impact ripples, large meter‐scale ripples, and dunes. The formation mechanism for large meter‐scale ripples is enigmatic and debated. This debate is largely informed by two questions: (a) Are large ripples similar to any features on Earth? and (b) Do they have the same grain size distribution as dunes and impact ripples? We address these questions using a novel digitizing approach to produce the largest known data set of Mars ripple sand grain size to date. We find a distinction between the grain size distributions of small ripples and large ripples and suggest that analogous bedforms are found on Earth. Despite an inability to perform rigorous sedimentology on Mars, results help resolve outstanding questions in bedform physics and support a hypothesis that aeolian ripples on Mars develop by a terrestrially analogous impact mechanism.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.201 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research PlanetsSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207