MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225913161 · doi:10.1017/eds.2022.2

Evolution of machine learning in environmental science—A perspective

2022· article· en· W4225913161 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Data Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParametrization (atmospheric modeling)Perspective (graphical)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkMachine learningClimate scienceData assimilationDeep learningConvolutional neural networkGeneral Circulation ModelClimate changePhysicsMeteorologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The growth of machine learning (ML) in environmental science can be divided into a slow phase lasting till the mid-2010s and a fast phase thereafter. The rapid transition was brought about by the emergence of powerful new ML methods, allowing ML to successfully tackle many problems where numerical models and statistical models have been hampered. Deep convolutional neural network models greatly advanced the use of ML on 2D or 3D data. Transfer learning has allowed ML to progress in climate science, where data records are generally short for ML. ML and physics are also merging in new areas, for example: (a) using ML for general circulation model parametrization, (b) adding physics constraints in ML models, and (c) using ML in data assimilation.

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 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, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · 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