MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6995662023

Performance evaluation of an extensive green roof

2005· article· en· W6995662023 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Heat Island Mitigation
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreen roofUrban heat islandStormwaterSurface runoffGreen infrastructureVegetation (pathology)DurabilityUrban runoff
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to provide technical data on the performance of green roofs in the City of Toronto, and to illustrate their benefits in an urban context. Two extensive green roof systems were installed on a community centre in Toronto. Both systems contained the same components that differed in materials and designs. The green roofs contained lightweight growing medium, 75 - 100 mm in depth, that supported a variety of vegetation. The green roofs, and a reference roof, were instrumented to provide thermal performance and energy efficiency data, as well as runoff measurements. Although the vegetation was not well established in the first year of monitoring, nevertheless, the extensive green roofs reduced the building's energy demand by lowering the heat flow through the roof, especially in the summer. The green roofs were shown to be effective in delaying and reducing stormwater runoff and the retentionefficiency depended upon the characteristics of the rain event (intensity and amount) and the wetting history of the growing medium. Preliminary observations and membrane temperatures recorded also suggest that green roofs could likely improve membrane durability by reducing heat aging, thermal stresses, ultra-violet radiation and physical damages.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations52
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicUrban Heat Island MitigationFrench-language works237,207