Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

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

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

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

classification cs.CY
keywords climatellmsmisinformationchangeclassifyingexpertmodelsclaims
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Informing AI Risk Assessment with News Media: Analyzing National and Political Variation in the Coverage of AI Risks

    cs.CY 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AI risk coverage in the news varies by country and by U.S. outlet political bias, with right-leaning outlets emphasizing malicious actors and political-culture risks.

Pith tools