MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405017671 · doi:10.56397/jrssh.2024.11.06

The Role of Green Roofs in Mitigating Urban Heat Islands in Berlin, Germany

2024· article· en· W4405017671 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melanie Vogel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Social Science and Humanities · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Heat Island Mitigation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreen roofUrban heat islandUrbanizationContext (archaeology)SustainabilityGreen infrastructureEnvironmental planningIncentiveUrban sustainabilityMicroclimateUrban planningMegacityStormwaterClimate changeAir quality indexEnvironmental qualityBusinessEnvironmental resource managementGeographyCivil engineeringPolitical scienceEconomic growthRoofSurface runoffEnvironmental scienceEngineeringEconomyMeteorologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban heat islands (UHIs) pose significant environmental and social challenges for cities, particularly in the context of climate change and rapid urbanization. In Berlin, green roofs have emerged as a sustainable solution to mitigate UHIs, offering benefits such as temperature regulation, stormwater management, and improved air quality. This paper explores the environmental impact of green roofs in Berlin, focusing on their ability to reduce urban temperatures and enhance microclimates. It also examines the city’s policies and incentives that promote green roof adoption, alongside successful local projects. However, challenges such as economic constraints, technical barriers, and public engagement limitations hinder widespread implementation. Comparative perspectives from cities like Singapore, Toronto, and Copenhagen provide insights into overcoming these obstacles. By adopting tailored strategies and learning from global examples, Berlin can optimize its green roof programs to address urban challenges and enhance sustainability.

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)0.006
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research in Social Science and HumanitiesSame topicUrban Heat Island MitigationFrench-language works237,207