MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4256469921 · doi:10.1002/essoar.10503257.1

Geophysical observations of Phobos transits by InSight

2020· preprint· en· W4256469921 on OpenAlexaff
Simon C. Stähler, Rudolf Widmer‐Schnidrig, John‐Robert Scholz, Martin van Driel, Anna Mittelholz, K. Hurst, C. L. Johnson, M. T. Lemmon, R. D. Lorenz, Philippe Lognonné, Nils Mueller, L. Pou, Aymeric Spiga, D. Banfield, Savas Ceylan, Constantinos Charalambous, Domenico Giardini, F. Nimmo, M. P. Panning, W. Zürn, W. B. Banerdt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismometerGeologyRegolithTransit (satellite)GeophysicsMagnetometerMars Exploration ProgramAstrobiologySolar SystemPlanetGeodesyAstronomySeismologyMagnetic fieldPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since landing on Mars, the NASA InSight lander has witnessed 8 Phobos and one Deimos transit. All transits could be observed by a drop in the solar array current and the surface temperature, but more surprisingly, for several ones, a clear signature was recorded with the seismic sensors and the magnetometer. We present a preliminary interpretation of the seismometer data as temperature induced local deformation of the ground, supported by terrestrial analog experiments and finite-element modelling. The magnetic signature is most likely induced by changing currents from the solar arrays. While the observations are not fully understood yet, the recording of transit-related phenomena with high sampling rate will allow more precise measurements of the transit times, thus providing additional constraints for the orbital parameters of Phobos. The response of the seismometer can potentially also be used to constrain the thermo-elastic properties of the shallow regolith at the landing site.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAstro and Planetary Science→French-language works237,207→