MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401122330 · doi:10.3390/min14080773

Expanded Insights into Martian Mineralogy: Updated Analysis of Gale Crater’s Mineral Composition via CheMin Crystal Chemical Investigations

2024· article· en· W4401122330 on OpenAlexaff
Shaunna M. Morrison, D. F. Blake, T. F. Bristow, Nicholas Castle, S. J. Chipera, Patricia Craig, Robert T. Downs, Ahmed Eleish, Robert M. Hazen, Johannes M. Meusburger, D. W. Ming, R. V. Morris, Aditi Pandey, Anirudh Prabhu, E. B. Rampe, P. Sarrazin, Sarah Simpson, M. T. Thorpe, A. H. Treiman, Valerie Tu, Benjamin M. Tutolo, D. T. Vaniman, A. R. Vasavada, A. S. Yen

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsMars Exploration ProgramMeteoritePyroxeneGeologyMartianMineralImpact craterMineralogyOlivineContext (archaeology)AstrobiologyPlanetary scienceGeochemistryChemical compositionChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents mineral composition estimates of rock and sediment samples analyzed with the CheMin X-ray diffraction instrument on board the NASA Mars Science Laboratory rover, Curiosity, in Gale crater, Mars. Mineral composition is estimated using crystal-chemically derived algorithms applied to X-ray diffraction data, specifically unit-cell parameters. The mineral groups characterized include those found in major abundance by the CheMin instrument (i.e., feldspar, olivine, pyroxene, and spinel oxide). In addition to estimating the composition of the major mineral phases observed in Gale crater, we place their compositions in a stratigraphic context and provide a comparison to that of martian meteorites. This work provides expanded insights into the mineralogy and chemistry of the martian surface.

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)0.000
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 score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207