A topography of climate change research

被引:123
作者
Callaghan, Max W. [1 ,2 ]
Minx, Jan C. [1 ,2 ]
Forster, Piers M. [2 ]
机构
[1] Mercator Res Inst Global Commons & Climate Change, Berlin, Germany
[2] Univ Leeds, Priestley Int Ctr Climate, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
基金
英国自然环境研究理事会;
关键词
D O I
10.1038/s41558-019-0684-5
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The massive expansion of scientific literature on climate change(1) poses challenges for global environmental assessments and our understanding of how these assessments work. Big data and machine learning can help us deal with large collections of scientific text, making the production of assessments more tractable, and giving us better insights about how past assessments have engaged with the literature. We use topic modelling to draw a topic map, or topography, of over 400,000 publications from the Web of Science on climate change. We update current knowledge on the IPCC, showing that compared with the baseline of the literature identified, the social sciences are in fact over-represented in recent assessment reports. Technical, solutions-relevant knowledge-especially in agriculture and engineering-is under-represented. We suggest a variety of other applications of such maps, and our findings have direct implications for addressing growing demands for more solution-oriented climate change assessments that are also more firmly rooted in the social sciences(2,3). The perceived lack of social science knowledge in assessment reports does not necessarily imply an IPCC bias, but rather suggests a need for more social science research with a focus on technical topics on climate solutions. The rapid growth of climate change research presents challenges for IPCC assessments and their stated aim of being comprehensive, objective and transparent. Here the authors use topic modelling to map the climate change literature, and assess how well it is represented in IPCC reports.
引用
收藏
页码:118 / +
页数:13
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2014, IPCC 5 ASSESSMENT SY, P167
[2]   Making progress with the automation of systematic reviews: principles of the International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR) [J].
Beller, Elaine ;
Clark, Justin ;
Tsafnat, Guy ;
Adams, Clive ;
Diehl, Heinz ;
Lund, Hans ;
Ouzzani, Mourad ;
Thayer, Kristina ;
Thomas, James ;
Turner, Tari ;
Xia, Jun ;
Robinson, Karen ;
Glasziou, Paul .
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2018, 7
[3]   Physical and economic bias in climate change research: a scientometric study of IPCC Third Assessment Report [J].
Bjurstrom, Andreas ;
Polk, Merritt .
CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2011, 108 (1-2) :1-22
[4]   Probabilistic Topic Models [J].
Blei, David M. .
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, 2012, 55 (04) :77-84
[5]   A brief history of research synthesis [J].
Chalmers, I ;
Hedges, LV ;
Cooper, H .
EVALUATION & THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS, 2002, 25 (01) :12-37
[6]  
Chaney A., 2012, P INT AAAI C WEB SOC, DOI DOI 10.1609/ICWSM.V6I1.14321
[7]  
CHANG J., 2009, Advances in neural information processing systems, V22, P288
[8]  
Corbera E, 2016, NAT CLIM CHANGE, V6, P94, DOI [10.1038/NCLIMATE2782, 10.1038/nclimate2782]
[9]   Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports [J].
Ford, James D. ;
Cameron, Laura ;
Rubis, Jennifer ;
Maillet, Michelle ;
Nakashima, Douglas ;
Willox, Ashlee Cunsolo ;
Pearce, Tristan .
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE, 2016, 6 (04) :349-353
[10]   CORRESPONDENCE: The current status of climate change research [J].
Grieneisen, Michael L. ;
Zhang, Minghua .
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE, 2011, 1 (02) :72-73