MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392845495 · doi:10.3847/psj/ad2990

Three Years of ACB Phase Function Observations from the Mars Science Laboratory: Interannual and Diurnal Variability and Constraints on Ice Crystal Habit

2024· article· en· W4392845495 on OpenAlexafffund
Alex C. Innanen, Brittney A. Cooper, Conor Hayes, Charissa Campbell, Jacob L. Kloos, Scott D. Guzewich, John E. Moores

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Planetary Science Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsMars Exploration ProgramHabitEnvironmental scienceCrystal habitAstrobiologyAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyGeologyPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We examine 3 yr of phase-function observations of water-ice clouds taken during the Aphelion Cloud Belt season by the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL). We derive lower-bound single-scattering phase functions for Mars years (MYs) 34, 35, and 36, over a range of scattering angles from 45° to 155°, expanding on the MY 34 phase function previously derived from MSL observations using the same method. We also modify the procedure used for MY 34 to make use of cloud opacity values derived from other MSL observations, often taken in conjunction with the phase-function observations. From these, we see little variability, both interannually and diurnally in the phase function at Gale Crater. We use our derived phase functions to attempt to constrain a dominant ice-crystal geometry by fitting a two-term Henyey–Greenstein function. In comparing to HG functions of Martian dust and modeled water-ice crystals, we see agreement especially with droxtal water-ice crystals, dust at Gale crater, and irregular volcanic glasses. This could be indicative of crystals composed of some irregular shape.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Planetary Science JournalSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207