MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7124830624 · doi:10.1177/29768659251413865

Are we doomed, yet?! Climate tipping points twenty years later

2025· article· en· W7124830624 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Russill

Bibliographic record

VenueDialogues on climate change. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change Communication and Perception
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeSalience (neuroscience)Tipping point (physics)Climate governanceClimate systemClimate riskClimate policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I discuss the limitations of tipping points as a framework for communicating risks and vulnerabilities created by climate change. In doing so, I expand on the genealogical account of Anders Hansson, Jonas Anshelm, and Simon Haikola and their claims about the salience of apocalypse and doom in climate communication. I suggest that the communication of vulnerabilities to climate change, including catastrophic risks, should not seek to manage public emotion or invite billionaires to prescribe policy and governance frameworks for climate change.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.456
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.014 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialogues on climate change.Same topicClimate Change Communication and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207