MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412720327 · doi:10.1029/2024je008905

Notional Geological Traverses, Station Activities, and Sample Collection on Mons Malapert, Lunar South Polar Region

2025· article· en· W4412720327 on OpenAlexaff
D. A. Kring, Valentin Bickel, A. N. Deutsch, L. R. Gaddis, Juliane Groß, H. Hiesinger, Therese M. Huning, J. M. Hurtado, Wajiha Iqbal, K. H. Joy, L. Keszthelyi, M. Lemelin, Chris Looper, Jose' M. Martinez Camacho, G. R. Osinski, Eloy Peña‐Asensio, N. Schmedemann, M.A. Siegler, Sonia M. Tikoo-Schantz, C. H. van der Bogert, K. Zacny

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Planets · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsNotional amountPolarSample (material)AstrobiologyGeologyAstronomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The geology of a potential Artemis landing site on Mons Malapert is examined using remote sensing techniques and lessons learned from Apollo missions to the lunar surface. Orthomosaics, digital terrain models, illumination models, thermal conditions, crater size‐frequency distribution analyses, geomorphological mapping, spectral and compositional analyses, lunar surface physical property analyses, and image processing to reveal the lunar surface within permanently shadowed regions (PSRs) were integrated with anticipated crew capabilities to develop three notional extravehicular activity (EVA) traverses lasting 3, 3, and 6 hr each. The traverse plans recover 43 samples, with a mass of 44 kg, secured in 54 kg of sample containers, including those NASA requires for samples collected in and around PSRs, which is within the 100 kg limit NASA allows for a landed mission. The geologic plan for the EVAs addresses seven Artemis III science objectives, 25 science goals within those objectives, and 90 specific investigations of varying priority in the Artemis III Science Definition Team Report (43 high‐, 40 medium‐, 2 medium‐high‐, and 5 low‐priority investigations); for example, test and reveal new details about the lunar magma ocean hypothesis, the basin‐forming epoch and implications for Solar System architecture, sources and distribution of volatiles, and regolith physical properties relevant to human and robotic exploration.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research PlanetsSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207