Future prospects for backyard skating rinks look bleak in a warming climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Each winter, purpose‐built outdoor skating rinks are constructed in backyards and community parks across much of Canada and the northern United States. Past research projects that warmer winters will make it increasingly difficult to build outdoor rinks without artificial refrigeration. Here we build upon previous studies by mapping areas of North America where present average January temperatures are generally suitable each year for building outdoor rinks, and how this area will change by the 2050s and 2080s. Using projections from downscaled general circulation models, we show how under current emissions pathways, average January temperatures will become too mild by the 2050s to build outdoor rinks across much of eastern North America in most winters, and this area will expand by the 2080s to include most of the western United States. Under high emissions scenarios (RCP 8.5), unsuitably mild January temperatures expand to include densely populated areas of Canada's Prairie provinces by the 2080s. In short, many North Americans who build outdoor rinks every winter will, by mid‐century, be living in areas where temperatures are only cold enough to do so occasionally, creating a range of social, cultural, and health implications for people living in those regions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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".