Regional Climate Projections of Extreme Heat Events in Nine Pilot Canadian Communities for Public Health Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Public health planning needs the support of evidence-based information on current and future climate, which could be used by health professionals and decision makers to better understand and respond to the health impacts of extreme heat. Climate models provide information regarding the expected increase in temperatures and extreme heat events with climate change and can help predict the severity of future health impacts, which can be used in the public health sector for the development of adaptation strategies to reduce heat-related morbidity and mortality. This study analyzes the evolution of extreme temperature indices specifically defined to characterize heat events associated with health risks, in the context of a changing climate. The analysis is performed by using temperature projections from the Canadian Regional Climate Model. A quantile-based statistical correction is applied to the projected temperatures, in order to reduce model biases and account for the representativeness error. Moreover, generalized Pareto distributions are used to extend the temperature distribution upper tails and extrapolate the statistical correction to extremes that are not observed in the present but that might occur in the future. The largest increase in extreme daytime temperatures occurs in southern Manitoba, Canada, where the already overly dry climate and lack of soil moisture can lead to an uncontrolled enhancement of hot extremes. The occurrence of warm nights and heat waves, on the other hand, is already large and will increase substantially in the communities of the Great Lakes region, characterized by a humid climate. Impact and adaptation studies need to account for the temperature variability due to local effects, since it can be considerably larger than the model natural variability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".