MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205396985 · doi:10.5194/epsc2021-446

Regional and local geological characteristics of Isidis Planitia on Mars and analysis of terrestrial analogues.

2021· preprint· en· W4205396985 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natalia Zalewska, Leszek Czechowski, Jakub Ciążela, Mateusz Kuzaj

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMars Exploration ProgramAstrobiologyGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: There are thousands of small cones on Isidis Planitia on Mars. The cones have diameters of 300–500 m and heights of ~30 m. Many cones form subparallel chains several kilometers in length. Their origin is discussed in many papers [1,2,4,5] however, the mechanism of their formation is not explained, nor the reason for their arrangement in subparallel chains. The cones may be: rootless cones, cinder cones, tuff cones, pingos, mud volcanoes etc. [5]. Some of chains have a characteristic furrow suggesting possibility of fissure volcanism.The prevalence of these chains indicates that large-scale processes are responsible for their formation. Their proper classification can help identify their origin and explain other large-scale processes on Isidis Planitia. There are a few works about statistics of cones on Isidis Planitia e.g. [1,2,3]. However, we approached the problem in a different way.Considered region: Our analysis indicates that the cones can be grouped in larger systems. We divided Isidis Planitia into several characteristic regions (Fig.1). There may be several types of cones in one of the distinguished regions. Our division is based on the following structures (Fig. 2):1. Chains of separate cones,2. Chains of cones connected with each other,3a. Chains of cones connected to the furrow through the center,3b. Chains of cones connected to the furrow through the center with elongated, elliptical cones4. Chains of cones with the traces of flows,5. Chains of irregular cones without calderas with a depression around the cones,6a. Ridge arches without cones,6b. Chains of cones on the ridges.In the division of Isidis Planitia shown in Fig. 1, we also paid attention to the orientation of the chains of cones (Fig. 2). The sense of black arrows in regions is explained in Fig. 3 and in the text below. In most of our regions there are also groups of cones that do not form linear chains. Such group are named as "field of cones".Our current Isidis Planitia division includes 36 regions. We distinguished 11 regions with the predominant arrangement of arcs in the directions between ENE and ESE outlined in yellow (see Fig. 1 for notation of directions), 5 regions with the directions between WNW and WSW outlined in orange, 2 regions with the directions between NNE and NNW outlined in magenta and 15 areas with the directions between SSE and SSW, outlined in purple. 3 regions where the arcs of the cones are concentric (chains have common centers) are outlined in red. These 36 regions cover substantial part of the Isidis Planitia. In the rest of our regions there almost are not chains of cones.Fig.1. Regional division of the Isidis Planitia (THEMIS background) based the predominant direction of cones chains. Description of the regions in the text.Except for the regional analyses, we have also mapped sinuous ridges (marked black, winding lines), cracks and serial depressions, occurring near craters (marked blue lines), fields with polygonally cracked surface (outlined in black line), areas with a large number of small craters (outlined in brown ), areas with few or no cones (outline in green) and quasi-circular depressions sQCDs called ghost craters [5] (marked light green circle) (Fig. 1).In addition, we distinguished a large area without subparallel arcs with chaotic chains (outlined in cyan) and another large area with groups of cones creating fields, not forming chains, (outlined in navy blue).Fig.2. Various sets of cones in the Isidis Planitia: a) Chains of separate cones, b) Chains of cones connected with each other, c) Chains of cones connected to the furrow through the center, d) Chains of cones connected to the furrow through the center with elongated elliptical cones, e) Chains of cones with the traces of flows, f) Chains of irregular cones without calderas with a depression around the cones, g) Ridge arches without cones, h) Chains of cones on the ridges. The images are mosaic CTX except for d) which is based on HiRISE, ESP_013054_1900. Analysis of terrestrial analogues: We consider terrestrial analogues, hoping that they will show us possible mechanisms of the formation of cone chains on Mars. We chose such following analogues: glacial eskers [1], cinder cones, submarine volcanoes and rootless cones (Fig.3). Isidis cones are currently studied for the genesis of individual types of cones. We believe that volcanic origin (the result of lava flows) or phreatic origin (cones are form by solid pyroclastic material) are probable. Characteristic furrows in some chains suggest fissure volcanism.Fig.3. Selected terrestrial analoues of linear structures: a) eskers at Mc Donald Lakes, British Columbia, Canada, b) submarine volcanic cones in the Middle America Trench and the Tehuantepec Transform/Ridge, c) cinder cones on Lanzarote, Timanfaya National Park, www.lowcosttourslanzarote.com/blog/lanzarote-highlights/1-national-park-of-timanfaya, d) rootless cones on in the Landbrot, Iceland. Conclusions: Our division is made according to consistent characteristic morphological features. The next stage of the work will be to explain the mechanism of the formation of these forms, based on known geological phenomena but in relation to Mars. We want to clarify whether the designated areas were created in the same geological processes, or whether a different mechanism is responsible for the differences in these forms. We suspect that the chains 1, 2, 3a and 3b were created in a similar way but with different intensity of the processes. On the other hand, the chains 6a, 6b and 4 and 5 could have arisen in a different geological process.References:[1] Guidat, T., et al., (2015) Earth and Planet. Sci. Let . 411, 253-267. [2] Souček, O., et al., (2015) Earth and Planet. Sci. Let 426, 176-190. [3] Hiesinger H., et al., (2009) 47th Lunar and Planet. Sci. Conf. 2767. [4] Gallinger, C.L. and Ghent, R.R,. (2016) 40th Lunar and Planet. Sci. Conf. 1953. [5] Ghent, R. R., et al., (2012) Icarus 217, 1169-183.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.208 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207