Urban forest monitoring in the Regional Municipality of Peel's heat vulnerable areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The threat of climate change and the urban heat island (UHI) effect are combining to create areas of vulnerable human and non-human populations. There is support from several sources that suggest the urban forest is part of the solution, however, simply increasing planting initiatives is not appropriate for several reasons including the fact that urban environments generally do not provide ideal conditions for tree growth. Therefore, urban forests cannot provide communities with services that help them adapt to things like the UHI. To help strategically approach this problem, consideration should be given to approaching the urban forest as a social ecological system. This report looks at the Regional Municipality of Peel (Peel), a regional governing body that is comprised of the City of Mississauga, the City of Brampton and the Town of Caledon. Peel identified heat vulnerable populations within the region using a heat vulnerability index (HVI) to highlight areas that need additional resources and to identify areas where green infrastructure could improve their condition. The two main objectives of this report were to determine the relationship between human heat vulnerability and tree canopy cover in Peel and therefore to recommend an approach to monitoring tree health in three heat vulnerable neighbourhoods considering the use of citizen science. The results indicated that there was a relationship between heat vulnerable areas and tree canopy cover, including when considering for social variables. Monitoring of heat vulnerable areas may require additional energy therefore a strong citizen science approach may be necessary to combat this issue with limited municipal budgets. The approach to citizen science and local resident involvement should be systematic to create a culture of awareness toward the benefit of trees and as a solution to the UHI problem in their neighbourhoods.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".