MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396579327 · doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad454d

Exogenous Carbon is Unlikely to be the Source of Methane Microseepage Emissions on Mars

2024· article· en· W4396579327 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Notes of the AAS · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMars Exploration ProgramMethaneEnvironmental scienceCarbon fibersGreenhouse gasAstrobiologyMethane emissionsAtmospheric sciencesEcologyPhysicsMaterials scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A complete understanding of methane in the atmosphere of Mars requires information on putative sources. Organic carbon derived from meteoritic sources, such as interplanetary dust particles (IDPs), over geologic time is the best-defined source of organic carbon on the surface of Mars. Here we examine two different mechanisms for degrading this material to produce methane (1) Ultraviolet photolysis and (2) thermal decomposition. Neither of these mechanisms can produce sufficient methane under realistic assumptions to explain observed methane at Gale Crater, suggesting that IDPs are not the primary source material producing methane 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.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.255 · 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