Development of Designing Criteria in Children’s Urban Play Space in Iran- Review of Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most significant issues related to urban public design is considering outdoor spaces for children to play. Children need to see their environment as a part of their life and learn to protect it. Furthermore, they develop social, emotional, and physical skills by playing outdoors. In some developing countries such as Iran, limited knowledge exists about the state of outdoor play areas for children in cities. This study highlights the need for planners and other land managers to consider the critical importance of the urban environment for play activities of children and its current status in Iran. Literature, studies, opinions and ideas on the value of play and outdoors for children in cities and the limitations of their outdoor play is explored; the issues and points obtained from the literature are analyzed. And the need for further research with children and rethinking for the allocation and design of children’s open space in Tehran is highlighted. Consequently, the criteria to consider children’s play spaces in city of Tehran are proposed. Accessibility, local government involvement, knowledge sharing, appropriate playground design and accounting on children’s voice and view in design process are some criteria which are recommended to promote children’s open space and outdoor play area in Tehran.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".