|
--- |
|
license: mit |
|
language: |
|
- en |
|
widget: |
|
- text: >- |
|
There is little doubt that some players in the climate game not a lot, but |
|
enough to have severely damaged the reputation of climate scientists in |
|
general have stepped across the boundary into postmodern science. |
|
example_title: Ad homienm |
|
- text: >- |
|
Another famous place is the Tuvalu Islands, which are supposed to soon |
|
disappear. There we have a tide gauge record, a variograph record, from |
|
1978, so it's 30 years. And again - absolutely no trend, no rise. |
|
example_title: Cherry picking |
|
- text: >- |
|
So do petitions signed by more than 30,000 scientists that have challenged |
|
IPCC's 1995 procedures and report representations. |
|
example_title: Fake experts |
|
- text: >- |
|
Fourth, if industrial civilization is dangerously altering global climate, |
|
can any treaty stop it? The Kyoto accord in itself would do nothing to |
|
mitigate climate change, since it exempts the developing countries, which |
|
will be the major emissions source in the next century. |
|
example_title: Impossible expectations |
|
tags: |
|
- climate |
|
pipeline_tag: text-classification |
|
--- |
|
|
|
# Model Card |
|
|
|
## Model Details |
|
|
|
### Model Description |
|
|
|
<!-- Provide a longer summary of what this model is. --> |
|
|
|
This model identifies 12 distinct climate change denial strategies or fallacies to classify and analyse texts that express skepticism or opposition to climate change scientific findings. |
|
These 12 distinct labels come from the FLICC taxonomy created by John Cook and his colleagues. |
|
The FLICC taxonomy divides denial strategies into five primary categories: fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry-picking, and conspiracy theories. |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Developed by:** Francisco Zanartu, John Cook, Julian Garcia and Markus Wagner |
|
- **Model type:** DeBERTa (Decoding-enhanced BERT with disentangled attention) is a Transformer-based neural language model |
|
- **Language(s) (NLP):** Finetuned and evaluated on a English dataset. |
|
- **License:** [More Information Needed] |
|
- **Finetuned from model:** microsoft/deberta-v2-xlarge |
|
|
|
|
|
| Fallacy Type | Definition | |
|
|----------------------|-------------------------------------| |
|
| Ad hominem | Attacking a person/group instead of addressing their arguments | |
|
| Anecdote | Using personal experience or isolated examples instead of sound arguments or compelling evidence | |
|
| Cherry Picking | Selecting data that appear to confirm one position while ignoring other data that contradicts that position | |
|
| Conspiracy theory | Proposing that a secret plan exists to implement a nefarious scheme such as hiding a truth | |
|
| Fake experts | Presenting an unqualified person or institution as a source of credible information. | |
|
| False choice | Presenting two options as the only possibilities, when other possibilities exist | |
|
| False equivalence | Incorrectly claiming that two things are equivalent, despite the fact that there are notable differences between them | |
|
| Impossible expectations | Demanding unrealistic standards of certainty before acting on the science | |
|
| Misrepresentation | Misrepresenting a situation or an opponent’s position in such a way as to distort understanding | |
|
| Oversimplification | Simplifying a situation in such a way as to distort understanding, leading to erroneous conclusions | |
|
| Single cause | Assuming a single cause or reason when there might be multiple causes or reasons | |
|
| Slothful induction | Ignoring relevant evidence when coming to a conclusion | |
