MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066194854 · doi:10.1080/15659801.2015.1025511

Spontaneous dynamics and wild design in green roofs

2015· article· en· W2066194854 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeremy Lundholm

Bibliographic record

VenueIsrael Journal of Ecology and Evolution · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEcosystem servicesEcosystemBiodiversityEnvironmental resource managementNovel ecosystemWildnessEcologyHabitatDesign elements and principlesEnvironmental scienceEngineeringSystems engineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Green roofs and other constructed environments represent novel ecosystems, yet have potential to contribute to biodiversity conservation goals. Constructed ecosystems are intentionally managed to produce specific services, and thus could be viewed as highly artificial or controlled. Yet all constructed ecosystems exhibit spontaneous dynamics, as community structure changes due to internal or external ecological processes. While all green roofs have some element of design and human control over ecological trajectories, the level of ongoing management can vary greatly. I discuss “wildness” as a characteristic of green roofs in response to their spontaneous dynamics after initial setup, and their potential to provide ecosystem services related to human psychological well-being, aesthetics and habitat for biodiversity. This approach suggests new design possibilities in interaction with spontaneous ecosystem dynamics and highlights a need for greater ecological understanding of green roof systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations36
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIsrael Journal of Ecology and EvolutionSame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207