MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401633585 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adn2378

The source craters of the martian meteorites: Implications for the igneous evolution of Mars

2024· article· en· W4401633585 on OpenAlexafffund
C. D. K. Herd, J. S. Hamilton, E. L. Walton, L. L. Tornabene, Anthony Lagain, G. K. Benedix, Alex I. Sheen, H. J. Melosh, Brandon Johnson, Sean Wiggins, T. G. Sharp, James Darling

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario MuseumUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityMacEwan UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsMeteoriteMartianImpact craterAstrobiologyMars Exploration ProgramGeologyContext (archaeology)LavaMartian surfaceEarth scienceAchondriteGeochemistryVolcanoPaleontologyChondritePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately 200 meteorites come from ~10 impact events on the surface of Mars, yet their pre-ejection locations are largely unknown. Here, we combine the results of diverse sets of observations and modeling to constrain the source craters for several groups of martian meteorites. We compute that ejection-paired groups of meteorites are derived from lava flows within the top 26 m of the surface. We link ejection-paired groups to specific source craters and geologic units, providing context for these important samples, reconciling microscopic observations with remote sensing records, and demonstrating the potential to constrain the ages of their source geologic units. Furthermore, we show that there are craters that may have produced martian meteorites not represented in the world's meteorite collections that have yet to be discovered.

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)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207