Search

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) pose a challenge for achieving science that is both reproducible and replicable. The challenge is compounded in supervised models that depend on manually labeled training data, as they introduce additional decision‐making and processes that require thorough documentation and reporting. We address these limitations by providing an approach to hand labeling training data for supervised ML that integrates quantitative content analysis (QCA)—a method from social science research. The QCA approach provides a rigorous and well‐documented hand labeling procedure to improve the replicability and reproducibility of supervised ML applications in Earth systems science (ESS), as well as the ability to evaluate them. Specifically, the approach requires (a) the articulation and documentation of the exact decision‐making process used for assigning hand labels in a "codebook" and (b) an empirical evaluation of the reliability" of the hand labelers. In this paper, we outline the contributions of QCA to the field, along with an overview of the general approach. We then provide a case study to further demonstrate how this framework has and can be applied when developing supervised ML models for applications in ESS. With this approach, we provide an actionable path forward for addressing ethical considerations and goals outlined by recent AGU work on ML ethics in ESS. Plain Language Summary: Artificial intelligence and machine learning can make it hard to do science in a way that can be repeated. This can mean redoing a study in the exact same way to see if you can get the same or similar results (reproducibility) or trying to use the same study design on a new problem to see if the results are the same or similar (replicability). These types of scientific repetitions is important for developing robust knowledge, but is hard to do with certain types of machine learning that rely on data that were categorized by researchers. The researchers have to make decisions and categorize their data, which the machine learning algorithm then uses as a guide to make its own decisions. Generally, there is not enough information shared by the researchers about how these decisions were made to repeat the science or evaluate how good it is. In this paper, we provide a way to address these shortcomings. The approach and example we offer illustrates how to (a) create a rulebook that can be shared for how to make decisions and (b) quantitatively measure how consistent the researchers are at using that rulebook to make their decisions. Key Points: We provide a rigorous hand labeling procedure to improve the replicability and reproducibility of supervised machine learning (ML)Our case study and step‐by‐step guide clearly outline how the procedure can be appliedThe procedure is an actionable path forward for addressing ethical considerations and goals for ML development in Earth systems science [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Demands to manage the risks of artificial intelligence (AI) are growing. These demands and the government standards arising from them both call for trustworthy AI. In response, we adopt a convergent approach to review, evaluate, and synthesize research on the trust and trustworthiness of AI in the environmental sciences and propose a research agenda. Evidential and conceptual histories of research on trust and trustworthiness reveal persisting ambiguities and measurement shortcomings related to inconsistent attention to the contextual and social dependencies and dynamics of trust. Potentially underappreciated in the development of trustworthy AI for environmental sciences is the importance of engaging AI users and other stakeholders, which human–AI teaming perspectives on AI development similarly underscore. Co‐development strategies may also help reconcile efforts to develop performance‐based trustworthiness standards with dynamic and contextual notions of trust. We illustrate the importance of these themes with applied examples and show how insights from research on trust and the communication of risk and uncertainty can help advance the understanding of trust and trustworthiness of AI in the environmental sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By improving the prediction, understanding, and communication of powerful events in the atmosphere and ocean, artificial intelligence can revolutionize how communities respond to climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using survey data, the authors developed an architecture of climate change beliefs in Norway and their correlation with support for policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A strong majority of respondents believe that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and identify carbon dioxide emissions as a cause. Regression analysis shows that respondents recognize the effectiveness of direct actions that require difficult trade-offs, such as imposing a carbon tax. Yet, their voting intentions suggest a preference for policies that have at best an indirect effect on reducing climate change. Most respondents favor policy options that are generally good for the environment and cause no personal hardship. The disconnection between perceptions about the effectiveness of direct actions and support for less effective mitigation approaches may reflect the respondents' collective distancing from the problem of climate change. This could be an important consideration in the design of communication strategies that promote emission abatement policies.