MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406824461 · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-85059-8

Spatial variations in urban woodland cooling between background climates

2025· article· en· W4406824461 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jun Liu, Matthew Dennis, Lindley S. J

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Heat Island Mitigation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoodlandGeographyLand coverUrban climatePhysical geographyFragmentation (computing)Land useClimate changeEnvironmental scienceUrban planningEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban woodland composition and configuration have strong associations with land surface temperatures (LST), but the evidence is contradictory due to different spatial scales, regional climate zones, woodland types and urban contexts. In this study, we analyse associations between urban woodland and LST within and between five cities in different Köppen climate zones. Our consistent methodology is framed around local climate zones and conducted at a fine spatial scale. We find that urban woodland fragmentation, connectedness, and shape complexity all influence LST, though much less than overall cover. The importance of cover holds for all climates except for hot-desert (Cairo). Otherwise, every 1% increase in woodland cover corresponds to a reduction of LST of around 0.07 °C to 0.02 °C (London-Cfb > Toronto-Dfa > Nanjing-Cfa > Shenyang-Dwa). Within cities, increasing urban woodland cover generally reduces LST more in built-up compared to vegetated zones. Nevertheless, associations between local LST and urban woodland composition and configuration are highly heterogeneous across cities, especially in cooler climates. Thus, to unravel the complexities of urban woodland cooling, systematic analysis of contemporaneous local and regional factors is required.

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)0.001
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicUrban Heat Island MitigationFrench-language works237,207