MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403262592 · doi:10.5194/tc-18-4671-2024

Exploring the decision-making process in model development: focus on the Arctic snowpack

2024· article· en· W4403262592 on OpenAlexaff
Cécile B. Ménard, Sirpa Rasmus, Ioanna Merkouriadi, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Annett Bartsch, Chris Derksen, Florent Dominé, Marie Dumont, Dorothée Ehrich, Richard Essery, Bruce C. Forbes, Gerhard Krinner, David M. Lawrence, Glen E. Liston, Heidrun Matthes, Nick Rutter, Melody Sandells, Martin Schneebeli, Sari Stark

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œcryosphere · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMakivik CorporationEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersHorizon 2020European Commission
KeywordsSnowpackArcticTransparency (behavior)Context (archaeology)SnowProcess (computing)Climate changeEnvironmental resource managementClimate modelEnvironmental scienceManagement scienceComputer scienceMeteorologyGeographyEngineeringGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Arctic poses many challenges for Earth system and snow physics models, which are commonly unable to simulate crucial Arctic snowpack processes,such as vapour gradients and rain-on-snow-induced ice layers. These limitations raise concerns about the current understanding of Arctic warming and its impact on biodiversity, livelihoods, permafrost, and the global carbon budget. Recognizing that models are shaped by human choices, 18 Arctic researchers were interviewed to delve into the decision-making process behind model construction. Although data availability, issues of scale, internal model consistency, and historical and numerical model legacies were cited as obstacles to developing an Arctic snowpack model, no opinion was unanimous. Divergences were not merely scientific disagreements about the Arctic snowpack but reflected the broader research context. Inadequate and insufficient resources, partly driven by short-term priorities dominating research landscapes, impeded progress. Nevertheless, modellers were found to be both adaptable to shifting strategic research priorities – an adaptability demonstrated by the fact that interdisciplinary collaborations were the key motivation for model development – and anchored in the past. This anchoring and non-epistemic values led to diverging opinions about whether existing models were “good enough” and whether investing time and effort to build a new model was a useful strategy when addressing pressing research challenges. Moving forward, we recommend that both stakeholders and modellers be involved in future snow model intercomparison projects in order to drive developments that address snow model limitations currently impeding progress in various disciplines. We also argue for more transparency about the contextual factors that shape research decisions. Otherwise, the reality of our scientific process will remain hidden, limiting the changes necessary to our research practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œcryosphereSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207