MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389641434 · doi:10.1017/eds.2023.40

A novel heuristic method for detecting overfit in unsupervised classification of climate model data

2023· article· en· W4389641434 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 · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKUK Research and InnovationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOverfittingComputer scienceCluster analysisRobustness (evolution)HeuristicMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMixture modelData miningClass (philosophy)GaussianArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Unsupervised classification is becoming an increasingly common method to objectively identify coherent structures within both observed and modelled climate data. However, in most applications using this method, the user must choose the number of classes into which the data are to be sorted in advance. Typically, a combination of statistical methods and expertise is used to choose the appropriate number of classes for a given study; however, it may not be possible to identify a single “optimal” number of classes. In this work, we present a heuristic method, the ensemble difference criterion, for unambiguously determining the maximum number of classes supported by model data ensembles. This method requires robustness in the class definition between simulated ensembles of the system of interest. For demonstration, we apply this to the clustering of Southern Ocean potential temperatures in a CMIP6 climate model, and show that the data supports between four and seven classes of a Gaussian mixture model.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.194 · 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