Search for: All records

Abstract 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. 

Abstract 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.