MSD CoP Webinar: Accounting for distributive justice in model-based decision support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: This webinar was hosted by the MultiSector Dynamics Community of Practice (MSD CoP; https://multisectordynamics.org). Abstract: Model-based analyses play an ever-increasing role in informing policy and decision-making. However, many large-scale societal challenges unavoidably involve questions about the fair distribution of positive and negative consequences. How are the costs of the energy transition distributed over households and businesses? How are flood risks redistributed under different flood risk management plans? How are the impacts of climate change and climate mitigation distributed over different parts of the world?These kinds of questions play an important role when deliberating public policy, and the lack, in many cases, of clear answers becomes an obstacle to decision-making. At recent COPs, for example, wicked questions about loss and damages and the phase-out versus phase-down of coal became obstacles to global climate action, illustrating the misalignment of the direction of scientific research and decision-makers' information needs. In this talk, I'll explore advances that are being made that enable analysts to start providing grounded model-based answers to questions of distributive justice, as well as argue that analysts should embrace and explicate the normative nature of their work instead of hiding behind the purported neutrality of science. Presenters: Dr. Jan Kwakkel (Delft University of Technology) Moderator(s): Rebecca Saari (MSD CoP Working Group Co-Chair; Univ. of Waterloo), Matt Sparks (Univ. of Waterloo); Sarah Fletcher (MSD CoP Working Group Co-Chair; Stanford University), Juan Moreno-Cruz (Univ. of Waterloo), Patrick Reed (MSD CoP Facilitation Team Member, Moderator and Organizer) This webinar was held on: November 13, 2024 from 1 PM - 2:15 PM ET
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.056 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.156 | 0.046 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".