MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167483080

The Geoscience of Climate and Energy 1. Understanding the Climate System, and the Consequences of Climate Change for the Exploitation and Management of Natural Resources: The View from Banff

2009· article· en· W2167483080 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Andrew D. Miall, Charlene E. Miall

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscience Canada · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changePolitical scienceGlobal warmingEarth system scienceGeographyEnvironmental ethicsEcologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A commonly expressed opinion within the earth-science community is that the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has largely ignored paleoclimate data and the methods of research utilized by earth scientists. It can be demonstrated that this is not the case, and one of the objectives of the Gussow–Nuna conference was to present current research in this area. Whereas earth scientists might seem ideally placed to address issues of climate change and energy, many of the beliefs that inform public opinion about global warming and climate change are based on misrepresentations or over-simplifications. Six examples are discussed here, including mis-perceptions about the melting and retreat of glaciers, the true causes of concern about the future fate of polar bears, and myths about petroleum pricing and availability. There is ample space for the earth-science community to add its informed voice to debates about energy and climate change, but, to date, this voice appears to be have been largely ineffective. RESUME Dans le milieu des sciences de la Terre on a souvent l’opinion que les travaux du Groupe d'experts intergouverne-mental sur l'evolution du climat (GIEC) ont largement ignore les donnees et les methodes de recherche paleoclimatiques employees par les geoscientiques. On peut prouver que ce n’est pas le cas, et que c’etait un des objectifs de la Conference Gussow− Nuna que de presenter les recherches actuelles en la matiere. Bien qu’il semble que les geoscientifiques soient les mieux places pour traiter de questions de changement climatique et d’energie, de nombreuses croyances qui modelent l’opinion publique sur le rechauffement global et le changement climatique reposent sur des informations trompeuses ou des simplifications excessives. Six exemples seront discutees ci-dessous, dont les perceptions erronees sur la fonte et le retrait des glaciers, les veritables motifs d’inquietude sur le sort des ours blancs, et la saga des prix et de la disponibilite du petrole. Nombreux sont les forums ou les geoscientifiques peuvent faire entendre leur voix competentes dans les debats sur l’energie et le changement climatique, mais il semble que cela ait ete sans grand effet jusqu’a maintenant.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.202 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscience CanadaSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207