Making Forecasts Meaningful: Explanations of Problematic Predictions in Northeast Brazil
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study illustrates the need to consider the multiple interpretations and experiences that influence how climate forecasts are evaluated in local contexts when assessing how useful forecasts can be for increasing the resilience of rural communities. Video clips of predictions made by scientific and traditional forecasters were shown in interviews and focus groups to elicit explanations for why the predictions are sometimes judged to be inaccurate, not useful, or inappropriately communicated by different sectors of the rural population in Ceará, Northeast Brazil. Results indicate that climate forecasts are not simply a decision-making tool that provides information in a one-way transfer from forecaster to user. The meanings and values of predictions are jointly created by both forecasters and their audiences. Predictions and the discussions that surround them are also an important part of expressing social identities and ideas about how the world works. Ineffective predictions are explained here in terms of religious beliefs, environmental change, forecaster identity, interactional context, and cultural practices.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it