MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248093051 · doi:10.26868/25222708.2019.210574

Proper Choice Of Urban Canopy Model For Climate Simulations

2020· article· en· W4248093051 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Zahra Jandaghian, Umberto Berardi

Bibliographic record

VenueBuilding Simulation Conference proceedings · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Heat Island Mitigation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWeather Research and Forecasting ModelEnvironmental scienceWind speedCanopyAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyUrban heat islandAtmosphere (unit)SlabIntensity (physics)Atmospheric modelWind directionMicroclimateUrban climateReflection (computer programming)Urban planningGeologyGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Weather Research and Forecasting model (WRF) is coupled with the three types of Urban Canopy Models (UCMs) to predict heat and moisture fluxes from the canopy to the atmosphere. The three UCMs are slab, single-layer, and multi-layer. The WRF-UCMs are applied to investigate the impacts of summer heat on urban climate and characterize the heat island intensity in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) during the 2011 heat wave period (17th-21st July). The WRF-UCMs are evaluated using simulated hourly air temperature and wind speed results with measurements obtained from various weather stations across the domain of interest. The multi-layer of the urban canopy model (ML-UCM) predicts air temperature and wind speed more accurately comparing to other UCMs. The ML-UCM accounts for the turbulence and multi-reflection within the urban canopy and increases the computation time 30-40% compared to other canopy models (single and slab model).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuilding Simulation Conference proceedingsSame topicUrban Heat Island MitigationFrench-language works237,207