The design of landscapes at child-care centres: Seven Cs
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
Abstract Key criteria, called Seven Cs, identified from phase one of a five-year multidisciplinary study, are described. This study asked, what are the precise outdoor physical factors that contribute to early childhood development and quality play at child-care centres, and to what degree do these factors currently exist at the centres under study? The child-care setting provides an instrumental context for understanding children and landscape interactions. The Seven Cs criteria were derived from a comparison of 12 sample outdoor play spaces at child-care centres in Vancouver, Canada, with findings from a review of the literature concerning landscapes designed for children. Landscapes designed for children's use should consider developmental and play needs, and the unique contributions that landscapes can offer on a daily basis. Seven Cs earmark important physical dimensions of designed landscapes for children that can potentially enrich future designs at child-care centres. The goal is to provide a set of criteria that will allow the city of Vancouver Community Service and Social Planning Department to evaluate landscape design proposals for new child-care centres and to inform the existing set of Design Guidelines which the city is revising.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it