A Sensor Placement Strategy for Comprehensive Urban Heat Island Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban heat islands (UHIs) increase the energy consumption of cities and impact the health of its residents. In light of the correlation between energy consumption and health and UHI variations observed at a local level within the canopy layer, satellite-derived land surface temperatures (LSTs) may be insufficient to provide comprehensive information about these deleterious effects. For both LST and air temperatures to be collected in a spatially representative and continuous manner, and for the process to be affordable, on-ground temperature and humidity sensors must be strategically placed. This study proposes a strategy for placing on-ground sensors that utilizes the spatial variation of measurable factors linked to UHI (i.e., seasonal variation in LSTs, wind speed, wind direction, bareness, and local climate zones), allowing for the continuous measurement of UHI within the canopy layer. As a representative city, Pune, India, was used to demonstrate how to distribute sensors based on the spatial variability of UHI-related variables. The proposed method may be helpful for any city requiring local-level observations of UHI, regardless of the climate zone. Further, we evaluate the placement of low-cost technology sensors that use LoRaWAN technology for this purpose, in order to overcome the problem of high costs associated with traditional in-situ weather stations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".