Automated Fact-Checking of Climate Change Claims with Large Language Models
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
This paper presents Climinator, a novel AI-based tool designed to automate the fact-checking of climate change claims. Utilizing an array of Large Language Models (LLMs) informed by authoritative sources like the IPCC reports and peer-reviewed scientific literature, Climinator employs an innovative Mediator-Advocate framework. This design allows Climinator to effectively synthesize varying scientific perspectives, leading to robust, evidence-based evaluations. Our model demonstrates remarkable accuracy when testing claims collected from Climate Feedback and Skeptical Science. Notably, when integrating an advocate with a climate science denial perspective in our framework, Climinator's iterative debate process reliably converges towards scientific consensus, underscoring its adeptness at reconciling diverse viewpoints into science-based, factual conclusions. While our research is subject to certain limitations and necessitates careful interpretation, our approach holds significant potential. We hope to stimulate further research and encourage exploring its applicability in other contexts, including political fact-checking and legal domains.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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