MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416906263 · doi:10.1111/maps.70074

Textural and geochemical diversity of impact melt rock clasts in Apollo 16 sample 67015: Implications for the provenance of impact ejecta in the lunar highlands

2025· article· en· W4416906263 on OpenAlexafffund
Tara S. Hayden, G. R. Osinski

Bibliographic record

VenueMeteoritics and Planetary Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsClastic rockEjectaBrecciaRegolithImpact craterProvenanceApolloMeteoriteBasalt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Apollo sample 67015 has been classified as a fragmental breccia comprised of highlands‐type clasts and is proposed to be the most complex Apollo 16 sample. 67015 is dominated by impact melt rock clasts that display a variety of textures, which have been previously interpreted to be indicative of multiple impact events. Recent modeling has indicated that the Apollo 16 regolith may contain impact basin ejecta from Nectaris, Serenitatis, Imbrium, and Orientale. Here, the textural, mineralogical, and geochemical diversity of impact melt rock clasts in several thin sections of 67015 was assessed to evaluate the provenance of these impact melts and attempt to constrain the basin ejecta emplacement at the Apollo 16 site. The petrography and mineral chemistry of the melt rock clasts is highly diverse and may indicate a variety of sources, supporting previous evidence that the Apollo 16 regolith received ejecta from numerous large impact cratering events including Imbrium and Serenitatis. The diversity of clast types observed in 67015 and textural variability of thin sections prompts discussion into the most appropriate classification of this sample as well as the nomenclature used to describe lunar melt‐bearing breccia samples.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeteoritics and Planetary ScienceSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207