397 Assessment of Community Tree Planting Project Reveals Social and Psychological Benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A community tree planting project was conducted on the border of an urban Nashville, Tenn., neighborhood in Autumn 1994. In Jan. 2000, a written survey was developed to assess residents' perception of this site. Responses were gathered voluntarily and anonymously following a community meeting. Photographs of the site taken before the planting and again recently were available to respondents. Descriptions of the site's appearance prior to planting (turf only) included barren, boring, and lacking character. Comments regarding the site with trees suggest that trees provide cover and shade, are aesthetically pleasing, and represent positive human involvement. The average rating of the site's appearance prior to planting was “fair,” while its recent appearance was rated “very good.” Among three tree species included in the planting, Southern magnolia was strongly preferred over Canadian (Eastern) hemlock and Eastern redbud. Respondents valued magnolia's size, unique flowers and leaves, and evergreen nature. Most respondents did not use the area for any specific purpose. Despite that fact, respondents stated that they benefitted from the soothing aesthetics of the landscaped site, and that the site added value to the neighborhood and implied the qualities of belonging and leadership. An unintended outcome of the survey was its educational aspect. Nearly two-thirds of respondents did not live in the area when this site was landscaped, and most of them were not aware that the neighborhood had conducted the project. Nearly one-half of all respondents expressed interest in additional landscaping at this site or nearby high-visibility, high-use sites.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".