On the Diversity and Formation Modes of Martian Minerals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A systematic survey of 161 known and postulated minerals originating on Mars points to 20 different mineral‐forming processes (paragenetic modes), which are a subset of formation modes observed on Earth. The earliest martian minerals, as on Earth, were primary phases from mafic igneous rocks and their ultramafic cumulates. Subsequent primary igneous minerals were associated with products of limited fractional crystallization, including alkaline and quartz‐normative lithologies. Significant mineral diversification occurred via precipitation of primary phases from aqueous and atmospheric fluids, including authigenesis, hydrothermal and cryogenic precipitation, and evaporites, including freeze drying during eras of low atmospheric pressures. In particular, hydrothermal mineral formation associated with both volcanic fluids and sustained hydrothermal activity in impact fracture zones may have triggered significant mineral diversification, though as yet undocumented. At least 65 such primary minerals have been identified by flown missions to Mars and from martian meteorites. A host of secondary martian minerals were produced by near‐surface processes related to water/rock interactions, including hydration/dehydration, oxidation/reduction, serpentinization, metasomatism, and a variety of diagenetic alterations. Additional mineral diversity resulted from metamorphic events, including thermal and shock metamorphism, lightning, and bolide impacts. However, several dominant sources of mineral diversity on Earth, including (a) extensive fluid/rock interactions and element concentration associated with plate tectonics; (b) high‐pressure regional metamorphism associated with plate tectonics; and (c) biologically mediated mineralization—are not known to be in play on Mars. Consequently, we estimate the total mineral diversity of Mars to be an order of magnitude smaller than on Earth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".