Is Institutional Democracy a Good Proxy for Model Independence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Climate models developed within a given research group or institution are prone to share structural similarities, which may induce resembling features in their simulations of the earth’s climate. This assertion, known as the “same-center hypothesis,” is investigated here using a subsample of CMIP3 climate projections constructed by retaining only the models originating from institutions that provided more than one model (or model version). The contributions of individual modeling centers to this ensemble are first presented in terms of climate change projections. A metric for climate change disagreement is then defined to analyze the impact of typical structural differences (such as resolution, parameterizations, or even entire atmosphere and ocean components) on regional climate projections. This metric is compared to a present climate performance metric (correlation of error patterns) within a cross-model comparison framework in terms of their abilities to identify the same-center models. Overall, structural differences between the pairs of same-center models have a stronger impact on climate change projections than on how models reproduce the observed climate. The same-center criterion is used to detect agreements that might be attributable to model similarities and thus that should not be interpreted as implying greater confidence in a given result. It is proposed that such noninformative agreements should be discarded from the ensemble, unless evidence shows that these models can be assumed to be independent. Since this burden of proof is not generally met by the centers participating in a multimodel ensemble, the authors propose an ensemble-weighting scheme based on the assumption of institutional democracy to prevent overconfidence in climate change projections.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".