Recommendation: Improving the reproducibility in geoscientific papers: lessons learned from a Hackathon in climate science — R0/PR3
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
In this paper, we explore the crucial role and challenges of computational reproducibility in geosciences, drawing insights from the Climate Informatics Reproducibility Challenge (CICR) in 2023. The competition aimed at (1) identifying common hurdles to reproduce computational climate science; and (2) creating interactive reproducible publications for selected papers of the Environmental Data Science journal. Based on lessons learned from the challenge, we emphasize the significance of open research practices, mentorship, transparency guidelines, as well as the use of technologies such as executable research objects for the reproduction of geoscientific published research. We propose a supportive framework of tools and infrastructure for evaluating reproducibility in geoscientific publications, with a case study for the climate informatics community. While the recommendations focus on future CIRCs, we expect they would be beneficial for wider umbrella of reproducibility initiatives in geosciences.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | MetaresearchOpen science Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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