MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206293475 · doi:10.5194/epsc2021-372

A Comparison of Aphelion Cloud Belt Phase Functions Before and After the Mars Year 34 Global Dust Storm

2021· preprint· en· W4206293475 on OpenAlexaff
A. C. Innanen, Brittney A. Cooper, Charissa Campbell, Scott D. Guzewich, Jacob L. Kloos, John E. Moores

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMars Exploration ProgramDust stormMartianStormAtmospheric sciencesPhysicsEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyAstrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

. INTRODUCTIONThe Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) is located in Gale Crater (4.5°S, 137.4°E), and has been performing cloud observations for the entirety of its mission, since its landing in 2012 [eg. 1,2,3]. One such observation is the Phase Function Sky Survey (PFSS), developed by Cooper et al [3] and instituted in Mars Year (MY) 34 to determine the scattering phase function of Martian water-ice clouds. The clouds of interest form during the Aphelion Cloud Belt (ACB) season (Ls=50°-150°), a period of time during which there is an increase in the formation of water-ice clouds around the Martian equator [4]. The PFSS observation was also performed during the MY 35 ACB season and the current MY 36 ACB season.Following the MY 34 ACB season, Mars experienced a global dust storm which lasted from Ls~188° to Ls~250° of that Mars year [5]. Global dust storms are planet-encircling storms which occur every few Mars years and can significantly impact the atmosphere leading to increased dust aerosol sizes [6], an increase in middle atmosphere water vapour [7], and the formation of unseasonal water-ice clouds [8]. While the decrease in visibility during the global dust storm itself made cloud observation difficult, comparing the scattering phase function prior to and following the global dust storm can help to understand the long-term impacts of global dust storms on water-ice clouds.2. METHODSThe PFSS consists of 9 cloud movies of three frames each, taken using MSL’s navigation cameras, at a variety of pointings in order to observe a large range of scattering angles. The goal of the PFSS is to characterise the scattering properties of water-ice clouds and to determine ice crystal geometry. In each movie, clouds are identified using mean frame subtraction, and the phase function is computed using the formula derived by Cooper et al [3]. An average phase function can then be computed for the entirety of the ACB season.Figure 1 shows the temporal distributions of PFSS observations taken during MYs 34 and 35. We aim to capture both morning and afternoon observations in order to study any diurnal variability in water-ice clouds.3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThere were a total of 26 PFSS observations taken in MY 35 between Ls~50°-160°, evenly distributed between AM and PM observations. Typically, times further from local noon (i.e. earlier in the morning or later in the afternoon) show stronger cloud features, and run less risk of being obscured by the presence of the sun. In all movies in which clouds are detected, a phase function can be calculated, and an average phase function determined for the whole ACB season. Future work will look at the water-ice cloud scattering properties for the MY 36 ACB season, allowing us to get more information about the interannual variability of the ACB and to further constrain the ice crystal habit. The PFSS observations will not only assist in our understanding of the long-term atmospheric impacts of global dust storms but also add to a more complete image of time-varying water-ice cloud properties.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.266 · 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