User Participation in Public Space in Context of Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Struggling economies, unprecedented political leadership, increasing globalization, and unpredictable natural disasters are revolutionizing our world each year. Urban design must be re-realized as a vital actor in shaping and contributing to the new global quality of life. Public spaces, which allow the interaction of various groups having different activities, behavior, socio-cultural and life style characteristics, have special importance as areas that meet the differing social and physical needs of people. One of the most important problems in public spaces today is the dissatisfaction of disenfranchised users from various characteristics of the physical and social environment. For those sectors of society who are socially disenfranchised in some way, the use of public space is often an important part of life. Public spaces offer a refuge that these people may not otherwise have, and are sometimes the only spaces in which they can exist peacefully. These groups often manipulate and personalize public space to satisfy their physical and spiritual needs: their quality of life. Places, which meet basic human needs and allow for different activities, generally lack the quality and attraction that evoke a sense of place and attachment to their users. The concept of spatial quality and the criteria which define quality spaces have increasingly been studied in recent years. Successful public spaces have generally been planned and designed in an integrated way and in various form for different life styles and users. The role of public space and user participation for the quality improvement of the urban environment has been gaining more importance. The urban public spaces can be seen as a form public voice, and consciousness about the presence of people who are often the unseen majority of the population but who may not be considered in any urban social developments.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".