MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417220585 · doi:10.2110/jsr.2025.019

Sedimentology and stratigraphy of the fluvial–deltaic Skrinkle Haven member, Tenby formation, Jezero Crater, Mars

2025· article· en· W4417220585 on OpenAlexaff
Libby R. W. Ives, K. M. Stack, Emily Geyman, Sanjeev Gupta, K. L. Siebach, Samantha Gwizd, J. P. Grotzinger, Michael P. Lamb, N. Mangold, Oak Kanine, Robert Barnes, Patrick Russell, Jorge I. Núñez, Justin I. Simon, B. P. Weiss, Aileen Yingst, Sunanda Sharma, Stéphane Le Mouélic, Joshua Huggett, A. C. Pascuzzo, Brittan Wogsland, Woodward W. Fischer, Nicolas Randazzo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sedimentary Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersJet Propulsion LaboratoryU.S. Geological SurveySociety for Sedimentary GeologyFogarty International CenterCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesArizona State UniversityCalifornia Institute of TechnologyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsSedimentary depositional environmentSedimentologyMars Exploration ProgramDeltaImpact craterHavenFaciesStratigraphy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In 2023, the Mars 2020 Perseverance rover investigated the Skrinkle Haven member of the Tenby formation in the > 3.5-billion-year Jezero Crater western fan. This unit was interpreted from orbiter data as bank attached, lateral-accretion bars in a sinuous river on a muddy delta plain. To test that hypothesis, this study applies facies and stratigraphic analyses of both rover and orbiter data. Rover images show that the Skrinkle Haven member is composed of two lithofacies: a fine-grained sandstone and a pebble conglomerate. Both lithofacies are composed of structureless, ungraded, planar-parallel beds that have sharp, nongradational contacts and depositional angles up to ∼ 30°. These characteristics indicate that grain flow was the main depositional process and that the sedimentary bodies were built through downstream accretion. Architectural analysis suggests that the Skrinkle Haven member was deposited primarily as delta foresets and mouth bars, with limited river bar deposition. The sequence stratigraphic analysis identified five maximum-flooding surfaces associated with relative-lake-level increases ranging from 5 to 25 m. In the sequences, deltaic strata prograded during normal and forced regressions. Some sequences have evidence for compensational stacking. Lake levels decreased through time both within sequences and throughout the duration of the Skrinkle Haven member deposition, from at least –2415 m in the oldest sequence to at most –2455 m in the youngest. The elevation range of the Skrinkle Haven member is below the modern Jezero Crater outlet breach, suggesting that the Jezero Crater lake basin was closed at that time. Overall, the Skrinkle Haven member records the deposition of a sandy to conglomeratic deltaic system that prograded into a closed lake basin during both forced and normal regressions. This type of fluvial–deltaic system is significantly different from the muddy delta topsets originally interpreted from orbiter data, because of the different implications for biosignature preservation and the paleohydrology of the Jezero Crater.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sedimentary ResearchSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207