MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2236490451

Interpretive by Design: Engaging a Community to Create Interpretive Park Signage

2015· article· en· W2236490451 on OpenAlexaff
Joan Higgins, Lorraine Brewster, John Buxcey, Stevie-Rae Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Park and Recreation Administration · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnimal and Plant Science Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSignageRecreationFocus groupNational parkPsychologyComprehensionPublic relationsGeographySociologyEcologyPolitical scienceAdvertisingBusinessArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Executive Summary This paper describes our experience of engaging community residents and stakeholders in a nine month process of designing interpretive messaging in a popular public park on Salt Spring Island, B.C. Located close to the downtown core, the park covers 56.6 acres with a trail length over 8 km, and serves multiple users including tourists. The need for interpretive signage was identified to facilitate park staff to manage park issues among multiple users, educate visitors on the importance of the park's fragile ecosystem, offer correct historical and cultural information, as well as manage behaviours of visitors within the park (e.g., litter, vandalism, protecting flora/fauna etc.). The process included two phases: to begin, we engaged in three months of initial consultations through 11 focus groups with 89 residents and 16 park and recreation professionals to explore their experiences with and knowledge of the park. From the analysis of the focus group data, the general content of six signs were identified as important for the park: history, ecology, park behaviour guidelines, dog walking guidelines, directional sign, and one about the health benefits of being in nature. As well, a connecting theme emerged that captured the core beliefs, values and attitudes of focus group participants with regards to the park that we labeled “by nature.”  This was followed by three months of designing and piloting 6 draft signs with 104 residents and 56 tourists who completed brief surveys about language, visuals, and comprehension. In the second phase, informed by the piloting results, signs were finalized, constructed and mounted in the park, and 68 park visitors were surveyed to evaluate the influence of the signs on their learning and park experience. We also gathered observational data using the Physical Activity Resource Assessment to assess the impact of the signs on park incivilities. In sum, a total of 265 Salt Spring residents and tourists contributed to the content and design of 6 signs in Phase I of the project. In Phase II, evaluation data from 63 park visitors revealed the signs to be very well received as evidenced by high scores for comprehension, interest and improved park visits. Answers to open ended questions on the survey confirmed the numerical ratings: 95.6% reflected positive terms, with ‘informative,' and ‘interesting' the most oft included terms. One year following their placement, none of the signs have been vandalised or stolen.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Park and Recreation AdministrationSame topicAnimal and Plant Science EducationFrench-language works237,207