Contrasting the differences in the micro-environment of green and conventional roofs in Toronto, Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To see how temperature, soil moisture, and light availability differ between green and conventional rooftops at York University, Toronto. Hypothesis: Green roofs ameliorated the microclimate of a building by absorbing solar radiation, resulting in cooler temperatures and less evapotranspiration. To compare how green roofs may alter the temperature, evapotranspiration or solar radiation, we placed four sets of three Parrot Flower Power sensors in 6” pots filled with soil. Each set of pots and Flower Power sensors were be placed on two green roofs and two non-green roofs at York University. These four roofs were surveyed from September 16th to November 9th and data collected periodically. Soil moisture changes within the pots was used as a proxy for the evapotranspiration rate on top of the roofs. Data points were extracted for each day using the software Web Plot Digitizer. One set of loggers on a tradional roof did not record for the duration of the season.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".