Scales of Martian Crustal Magnetization Constrained by MAVEN, InSight, and Zhurong
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While Mars does not possess a currently active geodynamo, remanent crustal magnetization has been found across the planet and contains records of the origin, scale, and timing of Martian magnetization. The first in situ measurements of the Martian magnetic field on the planet's surface, at the InSight and Zhurong landing sites, allow for better constraints on magnetization coherence and depth scales near the surface, as crustal fields are closely related to a variety of geological and topographic features. We develop Monte Carlo models of the Martian crustal magnetization near the two landing sites on small‐scales (50 km) to meso‐scales (1001,000 km) to compute altitude profiles of the magnetic field intensity. We compare our simulations with the Langlais et al. (2019, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018je005854 ) crustal field model and surface measurements, indicating that power law distributions more accurately describe Martian altitude profiles compared to Gaussian models. Observations are best explained by fractal parameter values near 2.7 and coherence scales roughly 250 km near InSight, with larger coherence scales and possibly thicker crustal magnetization near Zhurong. Motivated by these length scales, we create additional magnetization models based on the geological units near each lander to relate them to different time periods of Martian history. Our results suggest at least one polar field reversal in Martian history based on the simulated magnetization near the North‐South dichotomy boundary. Furthermore, we propose that the Martian geodynamo might have weakened or suspended during the late Noachian, followed by revitalization of the core dynamo during the Hesperian period.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".