MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392760624 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-13718

High-resolution Assessment of Heat Mitigation Strategies in the City of Toronto

2024· preprint· en· W4392760624 on OpenAlexaffabout
S. Jerome Hesse, Scott Krayenhoff, Timothy Jiang, Henry Lu, Abhishek Gaur

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicConservation Techniques and Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrban heat islandResolution (logic)Environmental planningEnvironmental scienceBusinessGeographyComputer scienceMeteorologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toronto is vulnerable to the negative impacts of extreme heat episodes, due to its high density of buildings, regular summertime heat episodes, and complex weather patterns influenced by Lake Ontario. As warming trends are anticipated to continue, the number of extreme heat days (warmer than 30 OC) will also increase. A high frequency of extreme heat days is associated with increased heat related mortality. Despite this, studies assessing strategies of heat mitigation in Toronto, which involve implementing infrastructure to reduce heat hazards, are currently limited. Using the mesoscale (~ 1 km resolution) climate model, Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF), various heat mitigation strategies, including addition of vegetation and high albedo surfaces, are explored. To quantify the impacts of urbanization, we modelled climatic conditions in the Toronto region with and without urban development. This step established that under the same boundary conditions, the presence of urban features significantly increases diurnally averaged temperatures in Toronto by as much as 4 oC. Having established that urbanization has led to higher temperatures, we then modelled the impacts of adding cool roofs and vegetation to urbanized Toronto simulations, finding that having 80% vegetation in all grid cells significantly reduces day-time diurnal temperatures. Lastly, our project will include a novel addition of street trees into WRF, allowing users to calculate tree-building interactions, including evapotranspiration and radiation trapping effects. The results of this study will be used in real time by building simulation teams to determine which mitigation strategies will best prevent overheating.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConservation Techniques and StudiesFrench-language works237,207