MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405604913 · doi:10.1080/00038628.2024.2443137

Summer outdoor thermal risk area mapping on a university campus in Auckland, New Zealand

2024· article· en· W4405604913 on OpenAlexaff
Saghar Hashemi, Amirhosein Ghaffarianhoseini, Ali GhaffarianHoseini, Nicola Naismith, Sahar Barmomanesh, David J. Sailor, Umberto Berardi

Bibliographic record

VenueArchitectural Science Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Heat Island Mitigation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyEnvironmental scienceArchitectural engineeringMeteorologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Outdoor thermal risks in urban areas are increasingly critical due to climate change and urbanization. This study identifies high-risk areas at Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand, using a multi-layered approach integrating hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Locations with Physiologically Equivalent Temperature (PET) exceeding 23°C were analyzed alongside user density and survey-based vulnerability assessments, pinpointing two high-risk zones. Future projections for 2050 and 2080 (RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios) indicate rising PET levels, amplifying thermal discomfort. Mitigation strategies, including green walls and tree planting, demonstrated PET reductions of 2°C and 3°C, respectively, under current conditions. These findings underscore the critical role of greenery in enhancing outdoor thermal comfort and resilience. The study’s replicable methodology offers urban planners a practical framework for addressing thermal risks and adapting outdoor spaces to climate change impacts, fostering urban livability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venueArchitectural Science ReviewSame topicUrban Heat Island MitigationFrench-language works237,207