MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139000925 · doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127099

Mapping the diversity of street tree inventories across eight cities internationally using open data

2021· article· en· W3139000925 on OpenAlexaff
Nadina Galle, Dylan Halpern, Sophie Nitoslawski, Fábio Duarte, Carlo Ratti, Francesco Pilla

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban forestry & urban greening · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeFP7 Coherent Development of Research PoliciesFulbright AssociationMassachusetts Institute of Technology
KeywordsDiversity (politics)GeographyUrban forestryDiversity indexTree (set theory)Urban ecosystemUrban forestSpecies diversityEcologyUrban ecologyUrban planningForestryBiologySpecies richnessHabitatSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tree diversity, on a species-, genus-, and family-level, is an important factor in securing healthy urban forests and providing ecosystem services for billions of city dwellers. Using open-source data on global tree inventories, this study examines (1) the diversity of species, genera, and family of urban street trees in eight cities internationally; (2) how they score on diversity benchmarks and indices; and (3) the diversity variation inside and outside of cities’ centers. We hypothesized most cities would score poorly on diversity benchmarks and spatial patterns in species composition would exist, as illustrated by established relationships between urban density and urban tree diversity. Results indicate city centers were less likely to approach the proposed diversity benchmarks than outside the city center. Overall, both Shannon and Simpson diversity indices show greater diversity outside of the city center, especially at the species-level. Understanding street tree diversity and spatial variation patterns across cities internationally can offer needed evidence to back up heuristic benchmarks. The methodology and open-source data used in this study are intended to enable practitioners better target tree diversity efforts.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.014
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations67
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban forestry & urban greeningSame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207