MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408056713 · doi:10.1145/3719346

Climate Data Practices: A Research Approach for HCI and Climate Justice

2025· article· en· W4408056713 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate justiceClimate changeEnvironmental resource managementData scienceEnvironmental scienceSociologyPolitical scienceGeographyComputer scienceGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article introduces climate data practices as a conceptual lens for HCI research and design toward social and environmental justice. We offer a working definition of this approach, which we locate at the intersection of critical data studies and practice theory. Drawing from a collaborative and multi-sited study of activists, city staff, and non-profit organizations, we present six examples of climate data practices as a means of illustrating the approach as well as the diversity of issues that it may usefully surface. Through these examples, we demonstrate that a data practices approach foregrounds the local, relational, and plural qualities of climate data. Finally, we connect data practices to two related concepts—scenes and infrastructures—which together offer a framework to guide critical interrogation of the social and political life of data, and support the design of data practices that serve broader goals of social and environmental justice.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.233 · 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