Investigation of Urban Vegetative Fluxes of Carbon Dioxide over the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Terrestrial vegetation is known to be an important sink for carbon dioxide (CO2). However, fluxes to and from vegetation are often not accounted for when studying anthropogenic CO2 emissions in urban areas. This project seeks to quantify urban biogenic fluxes in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area located in Southern Ontario, Canada. Toronto is Canada’s most populated city but also has a large amount of green-space, covering approximately 13 % of the city. In addition, vegetation is not evenly distributed throughout the region. We therefore expect biogenic fluxes to play an important role in the spatial patterns of CO2 concentrations and the overall local carbon budget. In order to fully understand biogenic fluxes they can be partitioned into the amount of CO2 sequestered via photosynthesis, gross primary productivity (GPP), and the amount respired by vegetation, ecosystem respiration (Reco). Solar induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) measured from space has been shown to be a valuable proxy for photosynthesis and thus can be used to estimate GPP. Vegetation models, including the Urban Vegetation Photosynthesis and Respiration Model (UrbanVPRM) and the SIF for Modelling Urban biogenic Fluxes (SMUrF) model, have also been used to estimate both GPP and Reco In this study we compare modelled and SIF-derived biogenic CO2 fluxes at a 500 m by 500 m resolution, to ground-based flux tower measurements in Southern Ontario to determine how well these methods estimate biogenic CO2 fluxes. This study works towards determining the importance of biogenic fluxes in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Furthermore, the results of this work may inform policy makers and city planners on how urban vegetation affects CO2 concentrations and patterns within cities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".