MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308026298 · doi:10.1029/2022je007440

A Mars 2020 <i>Perseverance</i> SuperCam Perspective on the Igneous Nature of the Máaz Formation at Jezero Crater and Link With Séítah, Mars

2022· article· en· W4308026298 on OpenAlexaff
Arya Udry, Amanda Ostwald, V. Sautter, A. Cousin, O. Beyssac, O. Forni, Gilles Dromart, Karim Benzerara, M. Nachon, B. Horgan, Lucia Mandon, Elise Clavé, E. Dehouck, E. Gibbons, Eleni Ravanis, R. C. Wiens, Carey Legett, R. B. Anderson, P. Pilleri, N. Mangold, M. E. Schmidt, Yisi Liu, Jorge I. Núñez, Kepa Castro, Juan Manuel Madariaga, T. V. Kizovski, Pierre Beck, Sylvain Bernard, Tanja Bosak, A. J. Brown, S. M. Clegg, E. A. Cloutis, B. A. Cohen, Samuel Connell, L. S. Crumpler, Vinciane Debaille, David Flannery, Thierry Fouchet, T. S. J. Gabriel, O. Gasnault, C. D. K. Herd, J. R. Johnson, J. A. Manrique, S. Maurice, F. M. McCubbin, S. M. McLennan, A. Ollila, P. Pinet, Cathy Quantin‐Nataf, Clément Royer, Sangita Sharma, Justin I. Simon, A. Steele, Nicholas J. Tosca, A. H. Treiman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Planets · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaBrock UniversityUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsMars Exploration ProgramAstrobiologyImpact craterPerspective (graphical)GeologyPhysicsGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Máaz formation consists of the first lithologies in Jezero crater analyzed by the Mars 2020 Perseverance rover. This formation, investigated from Sols (Martian days) 1 to 201 and from Sols 343 to 382, overlies the Séítah formation (previously described as an olivine‐rich cumulate) and was initially suggested to represent an igneous crater floor unit based on orbital analyses. Using SuperCam data, we conducted a detailed textural, chemical, and mineralogical analyses of the Máaz formation and the Content member of the Séítah formation. We conclude that the Máaz formation and the Content member are igneous and consist of different lava flows and/or possibly pyroclastic flows with complex textures, including vesicular and non‐vesicular rocks with different grain sizes. The Máaz formation rocks exhibit some of the lowest Mg# (=molar 100 × MgO/MgO + FeO) of all Martian igneous rocks analyzed so far (including meteorites and surface rocks) and show similar basaltic to basaltic‐andesitic compositions. Their mineralogy is dominated by Fe‐rich augite to possibly ferrosilite and plagioclase, and minor phases such as Fe‐Ti oxides and Si‐rich phases. They show a broad diversity of both compositions and textures when compared to Martian meteorites and other surface rocks. The different Máaz and Content lava or pyroclastic flows all originate from the same parental magma and/or the same magmatic system, but are not petrogenetically linked to the Séítah formation. The study of returned Máaz samples in Earth‐based laboratories will help constrain the formation of these rocks, calibrate Martian crater counting, and overall, improve our understanding of magmatism on Mars.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations70
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research PlanetsSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207