La place du paysagiste en ville dans un contexte de réchauffement climatique global. La question des îlots de chaleur urbains, application à Montréal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le present document a pour but de mettre en evidence la problematique souvent meconnue des ilots de chaleur urbains. Il s'agit de l'apparition de zones plus chaudes en ville que dans les espaces ruraux avoisinants. Ce travail theorique s'appuie sur des realisations ainsi que sur des observations realisees a Montreal (Canada). Une premiere partie permet de placer les bases theoriques des echanges thermiques, des mecanismes d'echauffement terrestre avant de definir le concept d'ilot de chaleur urbain. Par la suite, sont developpees les origines de l'apparition de ces ilots de chaleur. Ils resultent toutes de l'action de l'Homme sur son environnement mais elles sont de nature differentes. Il s'agit principalement de facteurs de surfaces, qui concernent la natures des materiaux ainsi que la morphologie des villes, de la perte du couvert forestier dont l'effet sur la regulation de la temperature urbaine est particulierement important, et de facteurs directement imputables a l'activite humaine. Enfin, la derniere partie de ce travail permet de decouvrir un panel d'actions qu'il est possible de prendre en consideration ou de mettre en oeuvre pour un paysagiste dans une optique de lutte contre les ilots de chaleur. Les mesures presentees se developpent sur trois plans : les mesures de vegetalisation, les mesures de gestion de l'eau et le choix de materiaux a faible impact thermique.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Discussion of urban heat islands and the landscape architect's role; urban design and climate.
This work studies urban heat islands and landscape interventions, not the research system.
Urban landscape design against heat islands in Montreal; object is climate/urban planning, not research practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.000 |
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.
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".