Lutter contre les îlots de chaleur urbains : évalution du potentiel des systèmes de pompe à chaleur gèothermique à boucle ouverte au Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban aquifers hold significant potential for sustainable space cooling solutions to help address the growing issue of urban heat islands, yet their suitability has remained underexplored. This study presents an assessment of urban aquifer suitability for cooling with groundwater heat pump (GWHP) systems in 10 Canadian cities. A numerical model was then developed for a case study in Québec City to compare the performance and thermal impact of different open-loop geothermal systems. A favourability index in the form of a 5-point rating system was developed to classify aquifer suitability by integrating key hydrogeological properties obtained from field data. Results indicate that Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge have high suitability scores (≥4/5), while Toronto, Montréal, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa/Gatineau, Québec City and Saskatoon score moderately (between 3/5 and 4/5). In addition to comparing conventional GWHP and aquifer thermal energy storage (ATES) systems, the modeling work also investigates the influence of a free cooling mode. Under the given conditions and assumed building loads, ATES systems perform slightly better than GWHP systems due to more efficient abstraction temperatures from stored thermal energy. Both system types show higher seasonal performance during cooling periods than during heating. Notably, operating with 100% free cooling yields a seasonal performance factor (SPF) of 19.1 during cooling while maintaining nearly identical performance during heating and causing minimal thermal impact on the aquifer. This research provides valuable insights into the sustainable potential of open-loop geothermal systems for urban cooling and UHI mitigation in cold climates.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".