The History and Practice of AI in the Environmental Sciences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have become important tools for environmental scientists and engineers, both in research and in applications. Although these methods have become quite popular in recent years, they are not new. The use of AI methods began in the 1950s and environmental scientists were adopting them by the 1980s. Although an “AI winter” temporarily slowed the growth, a more recent resurgence has brought it back with gusto. This paper tells the story of the evolution of AI in the field through the lens of the AMS Committee on Artificial Intelligence Applications to Environmental Science. The environmental sciences possess a host of problems amenable to advancement by intelligent techniques. We review a few of the early applications along with the ML methods of the time and how their progression has impacted these sciences. While AI methods have changed from expert systems in the 1980s to neural networks and other data-driven methods, and more recently deep learning, the environmental problems tackled have remained similar. We discuss the types of applications that have shown some of the biggest advances due to AI usage and how they have evolved over the past decades, including topics in weather forecasting, probabilistic prediction, climate estimation, optimization problems, image processing, and improving forecasting models. We finish with a look at where AI as employed in environmental science appears to be headed and some thoughts on how it might be best blended with physical/dynamical modeling approaches to further advance our science.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".