MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171309848 · doi:10.1177/0013916511412589

People Transitioning Across Places

2011· article· en· W2171309848 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. Barry Ruback, Robert T. Collins, Sarah Koon‐Magnin, Weina Ge, Luke Bonkiewicz, Clifford E. Lutz

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Behavior · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvacuation and Crowd Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPennsylvania State UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsStadiumFootballSpace (punctuation)AdvertisingQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychologyAggregate (composite)Social psychologyGeographyMathematicsComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stokols and Shumaker suggested that places can be characterized in terms of whether they are occupied primarily by individuals, aggregates, or groups. The authors propose a fourth type of place, one occupied primarily by groups within an aggregate. This research used a multimethod approach to examine whether people go to football games alone or with others and, if with others, how many others. Observations of cars entering parking lots or parking decks indicated that on average each vehicle contained about 2.5 individuals. Surveys of individuals about to enter the stadium also indicated that on average people were in groups of about four. Computer vision tracking of pedestrians next to the stadium about 2 hr before the game indicated that, although about one quarter of the pedestrians were alone, groups averaged about four. Thus, the results suggested that informal groups became larger as a function of proximity to the stadium. Analyses of the space occupied by groups of different sizes indicated that as groups got larger, the amount of space per person got smaller. These results, which indicate that people go to football games in small groups, have implications for the built environment and security.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and BehaviorSame topicEvacuation and Crowd DynamicsFrench-language works237,207