MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401792540 · doi:10.1002/esp.5961

Stable rivers: A case study in the application of text‐to‐image generative models for Earth sciences

2024· article· en· W4401792540 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Surface Processes and Landforms · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Processing and 3D Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGenerative grammarImage (mathematics)GeologyEarth (classical element)Earth scienceComputer scienceHydrology (agriculture)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Text‐to‐image (TTI) generative models can be used to generate photorealistic images from a given text‐string input. However, the rapid increase in their use has raised questions about fairness and biases, with most research to date focusing on social and cultural areas rather than domain‐specific considerations. We conducted a case study for the Earth sciences, focusing on the field of fluvial geomorphology, where we evaluated subject‐area‐specific biases in the training data and downstream model performance of Stable Diffusion (v1.5). In addition to perpetuating Western biases, we found that the training data overrepresented scenic locations, such as famous rivers and waterfalls, and showed serious underrepresentation and overrepresentation of many morphological and environmental terms. Despite biassed training data, we found that with careful prompting, the Stable Diffusion model was able to generate photorealistic synthetic river images reproducing many important environmental and morphological characteristics. Furthermore, conditional control techniques, such as the use of condition maps with ControlNet, were effective for providing additional constraints on output images. Despite great potential for the use of TTI models in the Earth sciences field, we advocate for caution in sensitive applications and advocate for domain‐specific reviews of training data and image generation biases to mitigate perpetuation of existing biases.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.261 · 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