MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1621582597 · doi:10.1111/geb.12218

Strengthening confidence in climate change impact science

2014· article· en· W1621582597 on OpenAlexaff
Mary I. O’Connor, Johnna M. Holding, Carrie V. Kappel, Carlos M. Duarte, Keith Brander, Christopher J. Brown, John F. Bruno, Lauren B. Buckley, Michael T. Burrows, Benjamin S. Halpern, Wolfgang Kiessling, Pippa J. Moore, John M. Pandolfi, Camille Parmesan, Elvira S. Poloczanska, David S. Schoeman, William J. Sydeman, Anthony J. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Ecology and Biogeography · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsConfidence intervalClimate changeLow ConfidenceIndex (typography)StatisticsEcologyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceGeographyPsychologyComputer scienceBiologyMathematicsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim To assess confidence in conclusions about climate‐driven biological change through time, and identify approaches for strengthening confidence scientific conclusions about ecological impacts of climate change. Location Global. Methods We outlined a framework for strengthening confidence in inferences drawn from biological climate impact studies through the systematic integration of prior expectations, long‐term data and quantitative statistical procedures. We then developed a numerical confidence index ( C index ) and used it to evaluate current practices in 208 studies of marine climate impacts comprising 1735 biological time series. Results Confidence scores for inferred climate impacts varied widely from 1 to 16 (very low to high confidence). Approximately 35% of analyses were not associated with clearly stated prior expectations and 65% of analyses did not test putative non‐climate drivers of biological change. Among the highest‐scoring studies, 91% tested prior expectations, 86% formulated expectations for alternative drivers but only 63% statistically tested them. Higher confidence scores observed in studies that did not detect a change or tracked multiple species suggest publication bias favouring impact studies that are consistent with climate change. The number of time series showing climate impacts was a poor predictor of average confidence scores for a given group, reinforcing that vote‐counting methodology is not appropriate for determining overall confidence in inferences. Main conclusions Climate impacts research is expected to attribute biological change to climate change with measurable confidence. Studies with long‐term, high‐resolution data, appropriate statistics and tests of alternative drivers earn higher C index scores, suggesting these should be given greater weight in impact assessments. Together with our proposed framework, the results of our C index analysis indicate how the science of detecting and attributing biological impacts to climate change can be strengthened through the use of evidence‐based prior expectations and thorough statistical analyses, even when data are limited, maximizing the impact of the diverse and growing climate change ecology literature.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

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

Citations56
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Ecology and BiogeographySame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207