Canadian climate data portals: A comparative analysis from a user perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate data portals are essential tools for climate change adaptation. This study analyses differences between two Canadian portals providing bias-adjusted CMIP6 simulations: Climate Data Canada and Portraits Climatiques. The study evaluates three core variables (daily maximum temperature, daily minimum temperature and precipitation) as well as assesses five case studies, taken from the agriculture, transport and health sectors, that relied on climate indicators available through the portals. The underlying datasets vary in multiple ways (bias-adjustment methodology, climate of reference, ensemble composition, emissions scenarios) and, in general, the climatology of variables and indicators tends to be statistically different between portals towards the end of the century. Differences are significantly reduced when comparing projected changes with respect to present climate conditions, highlighting the important role played by the dataset used as a reference for the bias-adjustment procedure. When considered from the point of view of practical applications, the discrepancies between the portals are generally, although not always, sufficiently small that they do not impact the resulting decisions. Finally, indicators based on a fixed threshold were found to be strongly influenced by the reference used for the bias adjustment.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.135 | 0.011 |
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 it