Analysing heat exposure in two German cities by using meteorological data from both within and outside the urban area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT As many cities are increasingly affected by heat waves, knowledge regarding those parts of cities most susceptible to heat exposure is essential for the implementation of directed adaptation measures. The frequency of heat waves is projected to increase in both German cities considered for this study: Karlsruhe and Berlin. By aggregating temperature data from meteorological stations within the two cities and their hinterlands, the local temperature distribution within the administrative city boundaries was assessed. A multiple regression approach was used to reveal the regional inter‐relationship between non‐meteorological factors such as altitude, population density and land use, on the one hand, and the heat distribution, on the other. This functional relationship was then applied at the city quarter level for the two cities. A model selection process was undertaken to find the most significant models describing the heat exposure of two heat indicators: heat wave days (HWDs) and tropical nights (TRNs). While altitude and population density were found to be the most significant explanatory variables for Karlsruhe, population density had a dominating influence on the distribution of heat at the city quarter level for Berlin. In Karlsruhe, models describing the daytime temperature performed best, whereas in Berlin those describing the night time temperature distribution had the highest statistical significance. This method could be used with relatively low financial and material expense to assess heat exposure in different city quarters even if there are insufficient meteorological stations within a city.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".