The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2501.13802 · v2 · pith:TTI33TEZ · submitted 2025-01-23 · cs.CY

Enhancing LLMs for Governance with Human Oversight: Evaluating and Aligning LLMs on Expert Classification of Climate Misinformation for Detecting False or Misleading Claims about Climate Change

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:TTI33TEZrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.CY
keywords climatellmsmisinformationchangeclassifyingexpertmodelsclaims
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Climate misinformation is a problem that has the potential to be substantially aggravated by the development of Large Language Models (LLMs). In this study we evaluate the potential for LLMs to be part of the solution for mitigating online dis/misinformation rather than the problem. Employing a public expert annotated dataset and a curated sample of social media content we evaluate the performance of proprietary vs. open source LLMs on climate misinformation classification task, comparing them to existing climate-focused computer-assisted tools and expert assessments. Results show (1) open-source models substantially under-perform in classifying climate misinformation compared to proprietary models, (2) existing climate-focused computer-assisted tools leveraging expert-annotated datasets continues to outperform many of proprietary models, including GPT-4o, and (3) demonstrate the efficacy and generalizability of fine-tuning GPT-3.5-turbo on expert annotated dataset in classifying claims about climate change at the equivalency of climate change experts with over 20 years of experience in climate communication. These findings highlight 1) the importance of incorporating human-oversight, such as incorporating expert-annotated datasets in training LLMs, for governance tasks that require subject-matter expertise like classifying climate misinformation, and 2) the potential for LLMs in facilitating civil society organizations to engage in various governance tasks such as classifying false or misleading claims in domains beyond climate change such as politics and health science.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Synthetic Sources?: Auditing Generative Search Engine Citations for Evidence of AI-Generated Sources

    cs.IR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Audit of ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini and Perplexity finds ~16% of cited sources are AI-generated across 712 queries on politics, health and environment.