Spatial accessibility and equity of playgrounds in Edmonton, Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing spatial equity with respect to urban public amenity provision involves examining the association between amenity distribution and population need for amenities. Geographic Information Systems in coordination with local spatial autocorrelation, were used to investigate the association between neighbourhood accessibility to playgrounds and demographic and social need for playgrounds in Edmonton, while considering differences in playground quality throughout the city. The primary objectives of this study were to assess whether playground provision, for location and quality, in Edmonton is equitable and, more generally, to investigate the role that amenity quality plays in assessing spatial equity. The results indicate that playgrounds are equitably distributed within Edmonton, with the highest‐social‐need neighbourhoods having the greatest accessibility to playgrounds. However, once differences in playground quality are considered, there is less of an association between high‐social‐need and high‐accessibility areas. The findings suggest that greater attention be paid to differences in playground quality within Edmonton and that spatial equity researchers give greater consideration to amenity quality when evaluating spatial equity within cities.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it