MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023989752 · doi:10.1300/j016v25n02_02

Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Therapeutic Gardens in a Multi-Level Care Facility for the Aged

2001· article· en· W2023989752 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueActivities Adaptation & Aging · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPost-occupancy evaluationOccupancyPsychologyGeographyMedicineArchitectural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A post-occupancy evaluation of eight therapeutic gardens at a multi-level care facility was conducted. Staff, volunteers, and families of residents were surveyed, and residents were interviewed. Of the 190 participants, 96.5% either strongly liked or liked the gardens. More than 80% believed that four of the five overall design goals of the gardens were achieved. However, participants' evaluations of specific garden features varied, and staff members were more critical than others. About 75% said the money to build the gardens was well-spent. About 20% of users offered extra comments. Implications for the planning of therapeutic gardens are discussed. Key Words: Therapeutic gardenspost-occupancy evaluationquestionnaire surveynursing home environmentgardens for cognitively-impaired

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it