A systematic review of microclimate and outdoor thermal comfort studies in Australia and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Given the distinct and unique climates in these countries, research conducted in other parts of the world may not be directly applicable. Therefore, it is crucial to conduct research tailored to the specific climatic conditions of Australia and New Zealand to ensure accuracy and relevance. Design/methodology/approach Given population growth, urban expansions and predicted climate change, researchers should provide a deeper understanding of microclimatic conditions and outdoor thermal comfort in Australia and New Zealand. The study’s objectives can be classified into three categories: (1) to analyze previous research works on urban microclimate and outdoor thermal comfort in Australia and New Zealand; (2) to highlight the gaps in urban microclimate studies and (3) to provide a summary of recommendations for the neglected but critical aspects of urban microclimate. Findings The findings of this study indicate that, despite the various climate challenges in these countries, there has been limited investigation. According to the selected papers, Melbourne has the highest number of microclimatic studies among various cities. It is a significant area for past researchers to examine people’s thermal perceptions in residential areas during the summer through field measurements and surveys. An obvious gap in previous research is investigating the impacts of various urban contexts on microclimatic conditions through software simulations over the course of a year and considering the predicted future climate changes in these countries. Originality/value This paper aims to review existing studies in these countries, provide a foundation for future research, identify research gaps and highlight areas requiring further investigation.
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 | 0.013 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".