MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405429796 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2321070121

Oxygen isotope identity of the Earth and Moon with implications for the formation of the Moon and source of volatiles

2024· article· en· W4405429796 on OpenAlexaff
Meike B. Fischer, S. Peters, Daniel Herwartz, P. Hartogh, Tommaso Di Rocco, Andreas Pack

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsThermo Fisher Scientific (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstrobiologyEarth (classical element)MeteoriteIsotopes of oxygenGeologySilicatePlanetesimalEarly EarthMantle (geology)IsotopeSolar SystemGeochemistryChemistryBiologyPhysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Moon formed 4.5 Ga ago through a collision between proto-Earth and a planetesimal known as Theia. The compositional similarity of Earth and Moon puts tight limits on the isotopic contrast between Theia and proto-Earth, or it requires intense homogenization of Theia and proto-Earth material during and in the aftermath of the Moon-forming impact, or a combination of both. We conducted precise measurements of oxygen isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rocks. The absence of an isotopic difference between the Moon and Earth on the sub-ppm level, as well as the absence of isotope heterogeneity in Earth's upper mantle and the Moon, is discussed in relation to published Moon formation scenarios and the collisional erosion of Theia's silicate mantles prior to colliding with proto-Earth. The data provide valuable insights into the origin of volatiles in the Earth and Moon as they suggest that the water on the Earth may not have been delivered by the late veneer. The study also highlights the scientific value of samples returned by space missions, when compared to analyses of meteorite material, which may have interacted with terrestrial water.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207