MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410302279 · doi:10.1029/2024gl112434

Properties of New Flows Indicate that Martian Gullies Form via CO<sub>2</sub> Frost‐Fluidization Processes

2025· article· en· W4410302279 on OpenAlexaff
C. M. Dundas, Susan J. Conway, Kelly Pasquon, Axel Noblet, Lonneke Roelofs

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsMartianFluidizationFrost (temperature)AstrobiologyGeologyEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesMars Exploration ProgramMeteorologyThermodynamicsGeomorphologyPhysicsFluidized bed

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Martian gully landforms are widely seen as evidence of liquid water, often attributed to snowmelt during high‐obliquity periods within the last few million years. However, widespread present‐day flows within existing gullies are caused by CO2 frost, presenting an alternative formation mechanism. Entrained frost vapourizes to fluidize flows, allowing them to behave similarly to wet debris flows on Earth. The slopes where present‐day flows erode and deposit provide insights into the landforms that many such flows could create. The shallowest slopes eroded by the flows are similar to slopes at existing channel mouths, and the most mobile flows reach final slopes similar to the outer reaches of existing gully aprons. This is consistent with formation of gullies entirely by CO2 frost‐driven flows, assuming their intensity and frequency varies in space and time. Geologically recent snowmelt cannot be ruled out, but is not required to explain the observed gully morphology.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207