Prioritizing social vulnerability in urban heat mitigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We utilized city-scale simulations to quantitatively compare the diverse urban overheating mitigation strategies, specifically tied to social vulnerability and their cooling efficacies during heatwaves. We enhanced the Weather Research and Forecasting model to encompass the urban tree effect and calculate the Universal Thermal Climate Index for assessing thermal comfort. Taking Houston, Texas, and United States as an example, the study reveals that equitably mitigating urban overheat is achievable by considering the city's demographic composition and physical structure. The study results show that while urban trees may yield less cooling impact (0.27 K of Universal Thermal Climate Index in daytime) relative to cool roofs (0.30 K), the urban trees strategy can emerge as an effective approach for enhancing community resilience in heat stress-related outcomes. Social vulnerability-based heat mitigation was reviewed as vulnerability-weighted daily cumulative heat stress change. The results underscore: (i) importance of considering the community resilience when evaluating heat mitigation impact and (ii) the need to assess planting spaces for urban trees, rooftop areas, and neighborhood vulnerability when designing community-oriented urban overheating mitigation strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".