Artificial intelligence and climate change: the potential roles of foundation models
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
Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) is being developed fast and applied in several areas including education and healthcare with excellent potential for use in fields that require complex analytics, particularly in the case of climate change. Recent developments in AI, such as ChatGPT and OpenAI, machine vision technologies and deep learning, among others, may be deployed in various contexts, including climate change. Of specific interest is the role played by foundation models (FMs), which may help to augment intelligence on climate change and reduce the social risks of adaptation and mitigation initiatives. This article discusses the potential applications of FMs in climate change research and management and illustrates the need for further studies. FMs, built on large unlabelled data sets and enabled by transfer learning, offer versatility in handling complex tasks. Specifically, FMs can aid in climate data analysis, modelling future scenarios, assessing risks, and supporting decision-making processes. Despite their potential, challenges such as data privacy, algorithm bias, and energy consumption require careful consideration. The article emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary efforts to address these challenges and maximize the positive impact of FMs in mitigation and adaptation. AI, including advanced models like FMs, holds significant promise for addressing climate change challenges.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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