Environmental equity is child's play: mapping public provision of recreation opportunities in urban neighbourhoods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper examines the spatial distribution of recreational opportunities for children and youth in a mid-sized Canadian city (London, Ontario), in relation to the socioeconomic status of neighbourhoods and estimated local need for publicly provided recreation spaces. Public recreation facilities (N = 537) throughout the city were identified, mapped and analysed in a geographic information system. To explore potential socio-environmental inequities, neighbourhoods (N = 22) were characterized by socioeconomic and environmental variables, an index of neighbourhood social distress, a neighbourhood play space needs index, and measures of the prevalence and density of recreational opportunities. The results of the spatial analysis indicate there is no systematic socioenvironmental inequity with respect to the prevalence and density of publicly provided neighbourhood recreation spaces; however, there are several areas in the city where youth do not have access to formal play spaces. We argue that to promote physical activity among urban children and youth, city planners and health policy analysts should consider carefully the geographical distribution of existing recreational opportunities and ensure that new publicly funded recreation spaces are provided to neighbourhoods with the greatest need. Further research should seek to identify what kinds of recreation spaces are most effective for promoting healthy behaviours among vulnerable children and youth.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".