Toward Co‐Designed Earth System Models: Reflecting End‐User Priorities in Local Applications From a Modeler's Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Earth System Models (ESM) are crucial for quantifying climate impacts across Earth's interconnected systems and supporting science‐based adaptation and mitigation. However, not including end‐users, especially decision‐makers representing communities vulnerable to climate change, can limit model utility, increase epistemic risks, and lead to information misuse in decision‐making. While the ESM community increasingly values broad community engagement, end‐users may not initially perceive models as useful for local planning. Co‐designing models with end‐users fosters two‐way learning: users better understand models and their outputs, while modelers gain insights into fine‐scale local processes like monitoring practices and management priorities. Higher‐level co‐design can lead to more customized, priority‐driven, and useful modeling products. Despite these benefits, modelers often struggle to initiate meaningful partnerships with local communities. Therefore, this paper explores model co‐design from the perspective of modelers. This study presents two case studies where modelers and social scientists collaborated with Indigenous communities' decision‐makers to reflect their priorities in model design and application. In the Arctic Rivers Project, high‐resolution climate and hydrology data sets for Alaska were developed with guidance from an Indigenous Advisory Council, using optimized, coupled land‐atmosphere models. In the Mid‐Klamath Project, we partnered with the Karuk Tribe's Department of Natural Resources to assess climate change and prescribed burning impacts on terrestrial hydrology in the Klamath River Basin. Drawing from these studies, we introduce a four‐level framework: (a) Co‐design Configuration; (b) Model Tuning; (c) Incorporate Contextual Knowledge; (d) Co‐develop New Model Functions. We aim to help researchers consider and compare co‐design across diverse modeling projects systematically and coherently.
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 | 0.048 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".