MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2277037444 · doi:10.1177/1937586715605779

Evaluating Intention and Effect

2015· article· en· W2277037444 on OpenAlex
Celeste Alvaro, Andrea Wilkinson, Sara N. Gallant, Deyan Kostovski, Paula Gardner

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHERD Health Environments Research & Design Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityContango Strategies (Canada)Bridgepoint Active HealthcareToronto Metropolitan UniversityCARE Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEvidence-based designComputer scienceHealth careKnowledge managementPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This post occupancy evaluation (POE) assessed the impact of architectural design on psychosocial well-being among patients and staff in the context of a new complex continuing care and rehabilitation facility. BACKGROUND: Departing from typical POEs, the hospital design intentions formed the theoretical basis to assess outcomes. Intentions included creating an environment of wellness; enhancing connection to the community, the city, and nature; enhancing opportunities for social interaction; and inspiring activity. METHODS: A pretest-posttest quasi experiment, including quantitative surveys, assessed the impact of the building design on well-being outcomes across three facilities-the new hospital, the former hospital, and a comparison facility with a similar population. RESULTS: With the exception of connection to neighborhood (for patients) and opportunities to visit with others (for staff) and wayfinding (for patients and staff), impressions of the new hospital mirrored the design intentions relative to the former hospital and the comparison facility among patients and staff. Perceptions of improvement in mental health, self-efficacy in mobility, satisfaction, and interprofessional interactions were enhanced at the new hospital relative to the former hospital, whereas optimism, depressive symptoms, general well-being, burnout, and intention to quit did not vary. Interestingly, patients and staff with favorable impressions of the building design fared better on most well-being-related outcomes relative to those with less favorable impressions. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond the value of assessing the impact of the design intentions on outcomes, the approach used in this study would benefit evaluation strategies across a diversity of health and other public and large-scale buildings.

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.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.389
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.109 · 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