dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
More than two thirds of the respondents required access to climate data and climate impact indicators to give advice on climate data and climate impact indicators to others, often in combination with support to the development of adaptation strategies and plans, suggesting an applied research perspective. A very limited number of participants could be regarded as societal end users (decision makers), confirming the initial expectations. Next, a user requirement workshop was organized in February 2015 focusing on the three user categories of the CLIPC portal which were considered to be the most important, namely climate scientists, impacts researchers and intermediary organizations, to maximize the relevance of the portal for users across Europe. The workshop included the testing and discussing of preliminary ideas, components and mock-ups; further specifying and prioritising requirements for a data portal and climate impact toolkit; managing expectations; and identifying needs and opportunities for further user consultation.
Engaging users panels in testing subsequent portal versions Benefiting from the experience of projects like EUPORIAS, developing climate services for seasonal climate forecasts (www. euporias. eu), CLIPC engaged a group of interested users in subsequent consultations more thoroughly. These users had the project objectives in mind, and therefore could provide targeted expert judgment. To facilitate regular interactions, virtual workshops were held using teleconference facilities, allowing the project team to interact ''graphically" with participants. A series of iterations was organized during the portal development phase, on technical components (e. g. , feedback on mock-ups, on data retrieval procedures), concluded with a face-to-face demonstration event with selected users in Brussels in October 2016.
Portal design: survey and interviews Users were asked to rank the main features of the portal according to their importance. Fig. 4  shows overall results in terms of perceived weaknesses and strengths of existing portals. Table  2  shows that different user groups have different opinions about weaknesses and strengths of existing portal (see  Groot et al. , 2013  for more details). Most respondents mentioned free open access and scientific correctness to be important. Climate scientists require availability and high quality of meta-data, whereas impact researchers highlight accessibility of data and information about uncertainty. Boundary workers attach specific importance to guidance to the selection and usage of climate data and climate impact indicators. Most respondents underlined the lack of guided search functionalities, the inability to combine and compare indicators, and the poor ability to visualize data as major weaknesses of existing sources of climate information.
The three main categories of users (climate scientists, impact researchers, boundary workers) were targeted for the semi-structured interviews. Interviewees distinguished 'user-friendly portals' from more 'technical' ones. They all emphasised the importance of clear and comprehensive metadata and confirmed that trust in portals depends on the scientific quality of the data, confirming the survey results in this respect. Other common issues raised during the users consultation on portal design included portal sustainability, reliability and adaptability; harmonization of data characteristics and tools across data sources, and user guidance for the portal. The sustainability of a portal relates to regular updates (with research findings and recent climate information) for a prolonged (or indefinite) time.
Redundancy with others sources of climate information should be avoided. Participants, especially climate and impact scientists, highlighted the necessity of a high scientific data quality, with adequate metadata and data resolution as high as possible and meaningful. Beyond the harmonization of tools, there is also the need to harmonize grids, colours, formats and calendars. Users recommended that the portal design should take into account the diversity of users, their skills and demands, determining the diversity of products, data resolution, available datasets, and users layers. The possibility to save queries was also put forward as a way to adapt to the diversity of users. Finally, participants requested a guided search function, availability of use cases as examples, and a help desk.
Possibly poor representativeness of user types. There is uncertainty both at the side of the providers (who will be the eventual users of the system?) and the users (what can I expect from this information source?) that affects the representativeness of users involved. As the variety of data and information increases (e. g. , from basic climate data to processed data to climate impacts and support for policy response), also the number and diversity of users increases. It is often unknown at the onset who the eventual users will be, which component of the system they are mostly interested in, and they may be different from the users who the developers had in mind originally. It remains unclear how representative users engaged in the process are for the range of potential and eventual users.
User panel instability. Participation of users in most information portal development processes is usually voluntary and not paid. This implies in practice that user panels involved in portal development is not stable: some participants will be able and interested to join different subsequent consultation sessions, following the development of beta-versions of the portal, others will drop out of the process or be involved at a later stage. This poses challenges for the developers, since different users may not only have similar or complementary but also conflicting desires. Portal as important but insufficient element of a wider set of climate services products. Many climate data and information projects have portals as their main outcome, with usually poor ''helpdesk" possibility if any. At the same time, it is clear that portals cannot provide all information users seek.
Credibility, saliency and legitimacy of climate information portals Different users will weigh these criteria differently, for some salience and user-friendliness and for others legitimacy and credibility can be more important. In terms of credibility, users find it important that the data made accessible through the portal is credible -the portal should be at least as credible as other information sources, or more. As for all information portals providing access to data and information elsewhere, the eventual responsibility of data quality may lie with the original data sources, but in order for users to use the portal and reuse it, they have to judge the credibility, or reliability of the information provided positively. A climate information portal provides access to data sources that may differ in terms of credibility.
This has to be taken into account in its design. In the CLIPC portal, one example is the difference between the climate data search and the impact indicator toolbox. The first provides access to established data sources, the latter is a novel development specifically developed for CLIPC allowing users to view, compare and combine climate impact indicators. Credibility also relates to a well-developed management and communication of uncertainties. In CLIPC, qualitative uncertainty (confidence) information will be provided for each indicator in the impact indicator toolbox based on expert judgement. In addition, attention is paid to a comprehensive and consistent treatment of metadata, a glossary, and other guidance material, including use cases (persona-scenario constructions). During the operational stage of a climate information portal, a systematic system of quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) is required to consolidate the credibility of the system.
Recognizing the importance of users confidence in data, as a first step in this direction CLIPC provided confidence fact sheets for all indicators. An expert-based confidence information system was included for climate impact indicators for which a quantitative analysis is not always possible. Arguably a more challenging criterion is saliency or relevance, because of the unknown and dynamically changing diversity of users, and the equally large diversity of data products and portal components and services (like visualization, post-processing). One option would be to have different interfaces for different user categories with different interests and skills, but this adds clicks and thus makes the portal less user friendly. Users participating in the CLIPC testing were satisfied with the chosen design, but of course their representativeness remains uncertain.
In particular, the very large amount of data sources and some features that are not available in other portals were appreciated. The latter includes the impact indicator toolbox and the MyCLIPC facility in which users can store the results of their queries and combine them with other data sources. A sustained dialogue, including training of providers and users and an effective user feedback mechanism, would ideally accompany the operational phase of a climate information portal. In order to remain salient, portals need to be flexible and co-evolve with the dynamic development of information supply and demands. Resources constraints challenge such sustained user interactions and flexible design, and often prevent multi-lingual portal versions, while those would potentially enlarge the user community and increase portal salience.
In terms of legitimacy, a key condition for engaging many users in CLIPC appeared to be the association with a formal European institution, e. g. , the European Commission and its Copernicus programme. Also, association with global institutions such as WMO and its Global Framework for Climate Services or the IPCC Data Distribution Centre would be important in terms of legitimacy. In this context, the fact that CLIPC as a project may be intended to develop the ''one-stop-shop" for climate information in Europe, but the use of the product cannot be guaranteed for the operational phase due to competition rules, was a major problem.
Finally, WMO suggests evaluation as a criterion for developing useful user interactions for climate services, i. e. developing monitoring and evaluation measures to be agreed between users and providers. It seems that many, if not most projects, consider evaluation as something to be done after a project has been concluded, or at most mid-term for longer programmes. Often, because new projects ask for attention, evaluation of finished projects is neglected. Also CLIPC did not include a plan to evaluate the project, its products and the user interactions during the project itself. 6. Conclusions: how can the climate data flood be managed to address the needs of a wide diversity of users? Regularly, new climate information portals are being added to the existing ones while a systematic evaluation of the usefulness of new and existing portals is generally lacking.
The limited literature basis and authors experiences with a number of projects developing various kinds of climate information portals suggest that most of the developers of these portals have consulted users before and/or during the development process, but a systematic analysis of whom the future users are and how they should be engaged is either not done or reported. Often, even by formal international programmes like the global GFCS and the European C3S ''users" are considered to be homogeneous and primarily policyor decision makers. This is a very serious problem since arguably the diversity of users may be at least as large as the diversity of data sources and products and is changing fast. In particular, climate impacts researchers and intermediate knowledge purveyors (e. g. , consultants or environmental agencies), are generally not distinguished as separate target groups, while they play an increasingly important role in providing climate information to societal end users who seldom use data portals themselves.
Building on earlier recommendations (e. g. , Swart and Avelar, 2011), we formulate our conclusions in the form of key recommendations for developing climate information portals for providing climate services: 1. Take the wide diversity of users, their objectives, interests and skills into account when developing information portals. In particular, recognize the important users ''between" climate data providers and societal end-users, such as various types of impact researchers and, even more importantly 2. Pay maximum attention to the continuity of information portals to the extent allowed by national and international funding rules. Users invited to engage in co-developing information portals will recognize that project-based portals run the risk of not being sustained, seriously limiting their motivation and commitment.
Seizing opportunities to further develop and link existing portals, rather than yet developing additional climate information portals, can prevent duplication and reinvention of wheels and make it easier to see the forest for the trees. 3. Systematically assure and manage quality of data and information. Users do not only require information relevant for their work, they also need to trust the data provided. In most cases, those maintaining and developing climate information portals are not the owners of the information -the responsibility for the quality of the data is with the original source. This means that the portal developers should communicate information about the quality of those sources. More questionable quality data may be made accessible, e. g. if they address key user questions, but in this case the quality of, or confidence in the data should be made clear to the user.
The latter goes beyond what a digital platform can provide. Maintaining a help desk is a minimum requirement to allow researchers and intermediate knowledge brokers to provide adequate climate services using climate information portals. 5. Assure that adequate attention is paid to well-developed guidance for selection, use and interpretation of data, in particular for nonacademic users. Such guidance may include use cases with persona-scenario constructions (fictitious users), a glossary, and information about confidence in data. Training courses or sessions can be organized to build capacity for particular user groups. 6. Include functionalities to transform data. Many users require transformed data rather than raw data, and often, dependent on their skills, want to implement this transformation themselves.
This can include easy-to-use post-processing functionalities (statistics, downscaling), visualization, and a personalized environment (e. g. , ''MyCLIPC") to store and process information and combine it with personal, e. g. local data. 7. Ensure links and consistency between international and national sources of climate data and information. 8. In advanced countries with a well-developed system of national climate services, users will preferably acquire climate information through national contacts, suggesting that international portals should focus on countries with less well-developed climate services. Facilitating combination of data sources (e. g. , regional sources with global information sources and, even more attractive, with local data) enhances the attractiveness of the portal. 9.
Climate. gov www. climate. gov NOAA (USA) National + Global Maps & data. Climate data + sectorial ''actionable information": Agriculture & Fishery, Air quality, Civil Infrastructure, Coasts, Energy, Extreme events, Human Health, Insurance, Marine ecosystems, National Security, Tourism, Transportation, Water KNMI Regional Observations: stations and gridded datasets. Climate Impact Indices, Indices of extremes. Downloadable data and exportable maps.
Instead, they were the functional result of changes made to the UNAIDS Spectrum analytical model that has been the primary method of estimating the size of global and regional HIV epidemics  [4] [5] [6]. Global paediatric HIV estimates require simulation modelling to calculate the denominators of children living with HIV, because national programme data are not consistently robust enough to represent true numbers of those infected, treated or dying from the disease, and such data do not exist for infants and children who never enrol in HIV programmes  [6, 7]. The Spectrum team regularly updates its model to refine global HIV estimates. For 2016, the Spectrum team substantially revised the structure of the paediatric HIV model, reflecting key differences between paediatric and adult HIV. This included two major updates to the data used as model inputs, which directly impacted the 2016 estimates.
First, new data suggested lower rates of mother-to-child HIV transmission for different categories of women at risk (e. g. , from 30% to 18% if seroconverting during pregnancy). This resulted in fewer infants estimated by Spectrum to be infected at birth. Second, Spectrum incorporated newly available age-disaggregated data into the Spectrum model on when children started antiretroviral therapy, provided by the International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS global consortium (IeDEA. org), an observational cohort including >140,000 children and adolescents in low and middle-income countries (91% from sub-Saharan Africa)  [8]. The IeDEA data showed that a large proportion of young children were not starting treatment at the ages recommended by WHO or country guidelines, as had been assumed in the previous UNAIDS model.
Consequently, the apparent improvements in ART coverage should not necessarily be interpreted as progress in the global HIV response, but are a reminder that model input parameters are based on assumptions that rely on limited actual paediatric and age-disaggregated data. The magnitude of the changes in the 2016 Spectrum estimates have had the effect of focusing the attention of the HIV community on the processes and assumptions that led to both previous and current model outputs. Prior to 2016, Spectrum mortality assumptions for untreated HIVinfected infants were based on a pooled analysis of empiric data in young children  [11] ; for children aged >2. 5 years, mortality rates from young adults infected between 15 and 24 years of age were applied  [11]. In addition, modelled mortality for children on ART was based on an earlier analysis of IeDEA data  [7].
The 2016 Spectrum revisions built on the strength of the IeDEA cohort's size and geographic coverage; however, the IeDEA database is a curated research database which may have limitations in terms of representativeness relative to national data and utility in monitoring country-level progress on paediatric HIV. Well into the second decade of the worldwide ART rollout, the lack of high-quality data from a broad range of HIV care and treatment programmes is of great concern. This is particularly important given the magnitude of the resourceallocation and policy decisions which are based on the Spectrum estimates. Investing in improved patient-and program-level data is critical to inform our progress towards various benchmarks, such as reaching the UN's "90-90-90" goals  [12]. These progress measures also assist with forecasting antiretroviral drug production needs for infant and child formulations, guiding the allocation of financial, human, and technical resources by HIV donor agencies, and setting research priorities.
A key user of Spectrum estimates is the US PEPFAR programme, whose country operating budgets totalled $3. 76 billion in 2015, and $36. 15 billion since 2005 (copsdata. amfar. org), and is an entity for which the availability of data for programme reporting purposes is mandated by US law  [13]. Although new UNAIDS estimates are accompanied by carefully articulated caveats and include detailed descriptions of the levels of uncertainty, public policy decisions have been based on the point estimates themselves. While Spectrum estimates remain essential benchmarks, readers should understand their limitations in the context of children and youth and be aware of the assumptions that have led to the changes in paediatric HIV estimates over time. Beyond that, we need a renewed emphasis on supporting the infrastructure required for data collection, management, and analysis within national HIV programmes in low-income and middle-income countries.
Acknowledgements Writing group:  Annette H. Sohn ,  IeDEA Asia-Pacific , TREAT Asia/amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, Thailand;  Mary-Ann Davies ,  IeDEA Southern Africa ,  University of Cape Town, South Africa ;  Constantin T. Yiannoutsos ,  East Africa IeDEA, Indiana University ,  US ;  Valeriane Leroy ,  IeDEA West Africa, INSERM, France ;  Kara Wools-Kaloustian ,  East Africa IeDEA, Indiana University ,  US ;  Rohan Hazra ,  Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, US ;  Devasena Gnanashanmugam ,  National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, US ;  Andrea Ciaranello ,  Massachusetts General Hospital ,  US ;  Rachel Vreeman ,  East Africa IeDEA, Indiana University, US. The writing group reports no competing interests. IeDEA thanks  Mary Mahy  at  UNAIDS  and  John Stover  at  Avenir Health  for their feedback on the manuscript.
Recently, our group reported an operando study of Pd half-cell through FEXRAV. 12 Our results pointed out that FEXRAV alone is not able to clearly distinguish the different species of the same valence state (i. e. Pd(II)). Hence, even considering only the contribution due to the formation of the oxide layer (PdO) and the electrodissolution of Pd (Pd 2+ solvated species) to the deactivation process of Pd/C electrocatalyst, the analysis of the experimental data could not identify which process is prevailing. On this basis, our aim is to present an integrated theoretical-experimental method to draw a conclusion on this subject.
Details of the FEXRAV experiment. -Recording the time evolution of the sample response to X-rays at a fixed energy close to the absorption edge of an element, FEXRAV reckons the valence states of such element even in a complex matrix under an electrochemical stimulus (i. e. during a cyclic voltammetry). 11, 13 Thanks to the high penetration of X-rays, it delivers information on X-ray absorption data through the walls of an electrochemical cells, with only minor design changes with respect to a standard electrochemical cell. Thus, it constitutes an ideal tool to investigate standard catalytic layers in operative conditions. In the setup hereby discussed, the lower detection limit is evaluated to be approximately 10 13 atoms/cm  2. In order to perform our experiments we used a standard three electrode cell, specifically designed (3D model in Figure  1a ) to be mounted in the experimental XAS chamber of the LISA beamline at ESRF.
5 mm and a flux at the sample position up to 10 10 ph/s. All spectra were registered at room temperature, with reference to a metal foil, simultaneously analyzed in a second chamber located after the former. According to this procedure, the energy calibration was let available during the whole measurement. Reference materials were: elemental Pd under the form of a metal foil (Goodfellow) and PdO (Sigma Aldritch). This latter sample was prepared dispersing and homogenizing an appropriate amount of microcrystalline powders in cellulose, and pressing the mixture to a self-supporting half inch pellet. Numerical modelling. -Phreeqc formalism. -We performed our calculation under the phreeqc formalism,  17  taking into account aqueous species equilibria in a reference database. The solid phases are considered through dissolution/precipitation reactions, and their stability is reported as the logarithm of equilibrium constant of formation (log K) at standard temperature and pressure condition (i.