Deep learning, explained: Fundamentals, explainability, and bridgeability to process-based modelling
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
Recent breakthroughs in artificial intelligence (AI), and particularly in deep learning (DL), have created tremendous excitement and opportunities in the earth and environmental sciences communities. To leverage these new ‘data-driven’ technologies, however, one needs to understand the fundamental concepts that give rise to DL and how they differ from ‘process-based’, mechanistic modelling. This paper revisits those fundamentals and addresses 10 questions that might be posed by earth and environmental scientists, and with the aid of a real-world modelling experiment, it explains some critical, but often ignored, issues DL may face in practice. The overarching objective is to contribute to a future of AI-assisted earth and environmental sciences where AI models can (1) embrace the typically ignored knowledge base available, (2) function credibly in ‘true’ out-of-sample prediction, and (3) handle non-stationarity in earth and environmental systems. Comparing and contrasting earth and environmental problems with prominent AI applications, such as playing chess and trading in stock markets, provides critical insights for better directing future research in this field.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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