Comparative Performance of a Field-Based Assessment of Human Thermal Comfort Indices in Urban Green Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban green spaces, closely tied to local climates, significantly affect human comfort levels, yet existing assessment methods vary in applicability across different contexts and regions. Here, we determined the applicability of two commonly used indices to evaluate human comfort in urban green space types in Hohhot City in China, which is in an arid and semi-arid area. We established sites in four different urban green space types (S1–S4) and a control area (CK) through field-based assessment, and collected meteorological data over 10 days in each season from 2020 to 2021. Specifically, air temperature, relative humidity, and average wind speed were observed from 7:00 to 19:00. Air temperature was highest in summer and lowest in winter. Throughout the day, air temperature first increased and then decreased, with the maximum temperature occurring later in winter than in other seasons. Relative humidity showed an opposite diurnal trend to temperature, and there were no significant differences between urban green space types and CK. The average wind speed of CK was significantly higher than that of the urban green space types. HCILu classifies thermal comfort levels across urban green space types and seasons into four distinct categories as uncomfortable, comfortable to less comfortable, less comfortable, and extremely uncomfortable. HCICMA further stratifies thermal conditions at urban green space types by season into cool and refreshing, most comfortable, most comfortable to slightly cool, cold, and uncomfortable. The HCILu ranged from 2.3 to 25.1, and tended to first decrease and then increase on a daily basis. Conversely, HCICMA fluctuated throughout the day and ranged from 18.6 to 78.0. According to HCILu, the urban green space types were comfortable for 45% of the observation time, and were comfortable for a greater proportion of time compared to if the comfort was calculated using HCICMA. HCICMA was strongly correlated with air temperature and average wind speed. According to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, the area under the curve (AUC) for HCICMA was 0.59–0.91, and was higher than that of HCILu in each season, indicating greater suitability for the study site.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".