MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121594490 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abdcf1

Cooling hot cities: a systematic and critical review of the numerical modelling literature

2021· article· en· W3121594490 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Heat Island Mitigation
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceMicroscale chemistryAlbedo (alchemy)Urban heat islandMesoscale meteorologyMeteorologyRoofScale (ratio)Neighbourhood (mathematics)MicroclimateAtmospheric sciencesComputer scienceClimatologyGeographyCivil engineeringMathematicsGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Infrastructure-based heat reduction strategies can help cities adapt to high temperatures, but simulations of their cooling potential yield widely varying predictions. We systematically review 146 studies from 1987 to 2017 that conduct physically based numerical modelling of urban air temperature reduction resulting from green-blue infrastructure and reflective materials. Studies are grouped into two modelling scales: neighbourhood scale, building-resolving (i.e. microscale); and city scale, neighbourhood-resolving (i.e. mesoscale). Street tree cooling has primarily been assessed at the microscale, whereas mesoscale modelling has favoured reflective roof treatments, which are attributed to model physics limitations at each scale. We develop 25 criteria to assess contextualization and reliability of each study based on metadata reporting and methodological quality, respectively. Studies have shortcomings with respect to neighbourhood characterization, reporting areal coverages of heat mitigation implementations, evaluation of base case simulations, and evaluation of modelled physical processes relevant to heat reduction. To aid comparison among studies, we introduce two metrics: the albedo cooling effectiveness (ACE), and the vegetation cooling effectiveness (VCE). A sub-sample of 47 higher quality studies suggests that high reflectivity coatings or materials offer ≈0.2 °C–0.6 °C cooling per 0.10 neighbourhood albedo increase, and that trees yield ≈0.3 °C cooling per 0.10 canopy cover increase, for afternoon clear-sky summer conditions. VCE of low vegetation and green roofs varies more strongly between studies. Both ACE and VCE exhibit a striking dependence on model choice and model scale, particularly for albedo and roof-level implementations, suggesting that much of the variation of cooling magnitudes between studies may be attributed to model physics representation. We conclude that evaluation of the base case simulation is not a sufficient prerequisite for accurate simulation of heat mitigation strategy cooling. We identify a three-phase framework for assessment of the suitability of a numerical model for a heat mitigation experiment, which emphasizes assessment of urban canopy layer mixing and of the physical processes associated with the heat reduction implementation. Based on our findings, we include recommendations for optimal design and communication of urban heat mitigation simulation studies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.251 · 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