Native coastal plants for northeastern extensive and semi-intensive green roof trays : substrates, fabrics and plant selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of the exotic plant called Sedums are contained within almost all extensive roof installations in New England. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the use of diverse regional native species including Sedum, might not work as well or better in extensive plantings on roofs between Boston and Halifax, Nova Scotia. A study was conducted in order to determine if native coastal species perform as well or better than their exotic counterparts used in extensive and semi-intensive plantings in roof trays between metro Boston and Halifax, Nova Scotia; and to determine whether a combination of substrates and fabrics in specially designed trays would provide a suitable environment for the growth of native species which were selected. The study identified candidate species untested in the Northeast, in particular, regional coastal species, and compared the environmental characteristics of their natural habitats. It evaluated native plants in side-by-side comparisons in small groups which emulated constructed mini-habitats. In order to gauge reliance on storm water, after installation, trays went without irrigation during extended periods of observation. Investigations of native plants were conducted in Wayland, Medford and Boston, Massachusetts and Halifax, Nova Scotia in 2005. Trends were noted which suggested some design strategies were successful in the short term and warranted longer term observation and analysis. The study concluded that propagators and roof designers in New England should increase the availability of some plants described in the study for use on extensive and semi-intensive roofs. 10 refs., 5 tabs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".