Campus gardens: Food production or sense of place?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Campus gardens can provide opportunities for experiential learning and enhanced physical and mental health; however, they require substantial commitments of time, money, and effort. This formative evaluation explored the perspectives of a university population on the establishment of a campus garden prior to its implementation. Phase 1 involved an electronic survey of the entire population at a small university (N=1300). Phase 2 consisted of 11 in-depth interviews with survey respondents who were interested in furthering the dialogue. The majority (85%) of the 415 individuals who responded to the survey and all interviewees supported the idea of a campus garden. Compared to a shared/community garden or rental plot, participants preferred a low-maintenance forest garden. Food production was secondary to protection of the natural environment and providing a space for rest and reflection. Participants’ sense of community, combined with knowledge of the university’s history, mission, and values, reflected a strong sense of place, a key component of social sustainability. Perhaps it is time to consider alternate options to traditional community gardens on university campuses. This research suggests that forest gardens, with their low-maintenance approach to food production and their potential to promote social sustainability through an enhanced sense of place, may be a good place to start.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".