MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6923498524 · doi:10.14288/1.0444931

Outdoors and Active : A Look into UBC’s Greenspaces

2024· article· en· W6923498524 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueUrban Green Space and Health
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNatural (archaeology)Space (punctuation)Outdoor activityPopulationWork (physics)Field (mathematics)Key (lock)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In this report, we explore the rates of usage and awareness of outdoor spaces across the UBC campus. The goal of this study was to understand the current levels of awareness/usage, barriers that keep people from using outdoor spaces, or facilitators that encourage them to use these spaces. The research focused on three different types of spaces, defined by UBC Recreation, which are built spaces, natural spaces, and cultivated spaces. The target population for the study included all members of the UBC community who currently study, live, and/or work at UBC. The mixed-methods surveys were distributed through social media, physical posters, or person-to-person interactions. After a response period that lasted between March 18th - April 3rd, 87 responses were gathered, and some key findings were discovered. Awareness of all 3 types of spaces was relatively high overall; every space we had in the survey had an awareness level of >50%. The usage rates were much higher in the natural spaces overall, both built and cultivated outdoor spaces lagged behind. Some key things noticed about these usage rates were that outside of the natural spaces, usage was often only high in areas that were considered central to campus (i.e., MacInnes Field and the Rose Garden). Based on the qualitative feedback that was received, there were some common barriers that people identified that kept them from using these spaces. One of these barriers was the issue of overcrowding. For example, a super crowded MacInnes field on a summer day doesn’t have a lot of space for people to play sports like soccer and frisbee. Another issue that people mentioned often was the issue of safety, in particular for trails like the one in Pacific Spirit Park. Some people reported they didn’t feel safe walking through areas like this due to a combination of a lack of proper lighting or a fear of walking alone. The social aspect of this was also a common theme in all other areas, many people reported not using the spaces as often because they don’t have a group of friends to go to them with, which discourages their participation. Finally, another barrier mentioned often was the weather in Vancouver. A lot of places, like the skatepark and basketball courts, are unsafe to play on during rainy weather, so as it rains for the majority of the year in Vancouver (especially in the months where students are at school), it makes these spaces harder to use. Some recommendations that we have come up with through doing this report include the following. An example of a recommendation we had was to organize social groups for walks/hikes around the natural and cultivated environments, as that would eliminate the barrier of feeling unsafe for people, and could encourage other members who felt isolated to utilize these spaces. Coverings for some outdoor spaces like the tennis courts, basketball courts, and skatepark could also be a way to increase utilization year-round so that it is not fully weather dependent. A final longer-term recommendation would be to create an app that could organize all of the spaces together and display the times when these spaces are available to use for the public (and whether or not they are free). If these recommendations are implemented, we think it will further ingrain physical activity into the UBC culture. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,933
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,133

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,002
Communication savante0,0040,004
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,184
Écart entre enseignants0,177 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Même sujetUrban Green Space and Health→Travaux en français237 207→