Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public parks play an important role in the health of the community. Not only are they places to play sports and run the family dog, but they also provide an essential interface between the natural world and the built environment. Located in East Vancouver, Killarney Park and Killarney Community Centre were built (in 1962) as a sports-oriented facility. While the extensive sports fields are quite well-used during game times, the sparse landscape consisting mostly of flat turf lined with street trees goes largely unused for purposes other than sports-playing. As well, the current park design fails to meet several programmatic needs of the community. Tai chi practitioners and local youth find themselves without an appropriate venue for their interests. Killarney Park has failed to evolve to meet the needs of the evolving community of Killarney. By formally addressing the issues of structure, community, ecology and play, the design proposal considers the whole community and its needs. The proposal for Killarney Park results from a layering of social, cultural and ecological programs where stormwater management systems interface explicitly with the main circulation system to put the site's ecological functioning in the public eye. Existing sports facilities are maintained, while community and ecological programs are layered to make full use of the site's potential as a community hub. The design for Killarney Park is a place of local celebration where sports viewing, outdoor movie watching, and local produce selling all find a home. The needs of the natural world are addressed by enhancing the stormwater infiltration and fruit production on the site. By layering the ecological functioning of the site with its community programming, this project explores how the neighbourhood sport-park can benefit not only the community and its people but will add to the the healthy functioning of the local ecosystem.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.003 |
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".