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 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".