MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200146713 · doi:10.1002/essoar.10509259.1

MSR Science Planning Group 2 (MSPG2): Planning for the curation of MSR samples in a Sample Receiving Facility

2021· preprint· en· W4200146713 on OpenAlexaff
K. T. Tait, F. M. McCubbin, C. L. Smith, C. B. Agee, David Beaty, H. Busemann, Brandi L. Carrier, Barbara Cavalazzi, Vinciane Debaille, Aurore Hützler, Tomohiro Usui

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmail authenticationWorld Wide WebElectronic mailComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All material that is collected from Mars (gases, dust, rock, regolith) will need to be carefully handled, stored, and analyzed following Earth return to minimize the alteration or contamination that could occur, and to maximize the scientific information that can be extracted from the samples, now and into the future. A Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) would be where the Earth Entry System is opened, and the sample tubes opened and processed after they land on Earth. The Mars Sample Return (MSR) Science Planning Group Phase 2 (MSPG2) was tasked with identifying the steps that encompass the curation activities that would happen within an MSR SRF and any anticipated curation-related requirements. To make the samples accessible for scientific investigation, a series of observations and preliminary analytical measurements would need to be completed to produce a sample catalog for the scientific community. The sample catalog would provide data to make informed requests for samples for scientific investigations and for the approval of allocations of appropriate samples to satisfy these requests. The catalog would include data and information generated during all phases of activity, including data derived from the landed Mars 2020 mission, during sample retrieval and transport to Earth, and upon receipt within the SRF, as well as through the initial sample characterization process, sterilization- and time-sensitive and science investigations. The Initial sample characterization process can be divided into three phases, with increasing complexity and invasiveness: Pre-Basic Characterization (Pre-BC), Basic Characterization (BC), and Preliminary Examination (PE). A significant portion of the Curation Focus Group’s efforts was determining which analyzes and thus instrumentation would be required to produce the sample catalog and how and when certain instrumentation should be used. The goal is to provide enough information for the PIs to request material for their studies but to avoid doing targeted scientific research better left to peer-reviewed competitive processes. Disclaimer: The decision to implement Mars Sample Return will not be finalized until NASA’s completion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. This document is being made available for planning and information purposes only.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.019

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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReproducibility
GenreProtocol

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207