MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893400158 · doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.187

Mimi-PAGE, an open-source implementation of the PAGE09 integrated assessment model

2018· article· en· W2893400158 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frances C. Moore, James Rising, Niklas Lollo, Cecilia Springer, Váleri Vásquez, Alex Dolginow, Chris Hope, David Anthoff

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersResources for the FutureAlfred P. Sloan FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceDocumentationImplementationLicenseSource codeModular designPython (programming language)Open sourceCoding (social sciences)World Wide WebSoftware engineeringDatabaseProgramming languageOperating systemSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) have become critical tools for assessing the costs and benefits of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Three models currently inform the social cost of carbon dioxide (SCCO 2 , the net present value of damages from one additional ton of CO 2 ) used by the US federal government, several states, and Canada. Here we present a new open-source implementation of one of these models (PAGE09) in the Julia programming language using a modular modeling framework (Mimi). Mimi-PAGE was coded using best coding practices (such as multiple code reviews by different individuals during development, automated testing of newly-committed code, and provision of documentation and usage notes) and is publicly available in a GitHub repository for community inspection and use under an open source license. In this paper we describe the Julia implementation of PAGE09, show that output from Mimi-PAGE matches that of the original model, and perform comparisons of the run time between the two implementations.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.328
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.070 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207