Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In the present study, we investigate the scaling properties of the topography of Mars. Planetary topographic fields are well known to roughly exhibit (mono)fractal behavior. Indeed, the fractal formalism is reproduces much of the variability observed in topography. Still, a single fractal dimension is not enough to explain the huge variability and intermittency. Previous studies have claimed that fractal dimensions might be different from one region to an other, excluding a general description at the planetary scale. In this article, we are analyzing the Martian topographic data with a multifractal formalism to study the scaling intermittency. In the multifractal paradigm, the apparent local variation of the fractal dimension is interpreted as a statistical property of multifractal fields. We analyze the topography measured with the laser altimeter MOLA at 300 m horizontal resolution, 1 m vertical resolution. We adapted the Haar fluctuation method to the the irregularly sampled signal. The results suggest a multifractal behavior from planetary scale down to 10 km. From 10 km to 300 m, the topography seems to be simple monofractal. This transition indicates a significant change in the geological processes governing the Red Planet's surface.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".