MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005495499 · doi:10.4018/ijepr.2013040101

Exploring Ways to Use 3D Urban Models to Visualize Multi-Scalar Climate Change Data and Mitigation Change Models for e-Planning

2013· article· en· W2005495499 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Danahy, Robert Wright, Jacob Mitchell, Rob Feick

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of E-Planning Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrban heat islandClimate changeVisualizationUrban planningEnvironmental planningScale (ratio)Environmental resource managementComputer scienceGeographyEnvironmental scienceCivil engineeringMeteorologyCartographyEngineeringGeologyData miningOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This e-planning visualization case study in the Toronto region investigated the use of 3D urban models as a visualization reference against which analytical models were visualized to identify micro scale mitigation scenarios of urban heat island effects. The case studies were directed to processes of planning decision making. The Toronto region faces problems of urban heat island impacts due to the increasing frequency of extreme heat events (Bass, Krayenhoff & Martilli, 2002). The City of Toronto and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) have each implemented policies and programmes aimed at mitigating urban heat island and climate change effects (City of Toronto 2006). This research explored ways of visualizing remote sensing heat island data to assist with the targeted application of planning policies and programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.655
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of E-Planning ResearchSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207