Cultural planning as an instrument for locating Ontario provincial parks within the valuable landscape of a community: A case study of Sandbanks Provincial Park in Prince Edward County, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to determine if the relationship between a community and the nearby provincial park can be enhanced through the use of the cultural planning process. \nTo address the research question a qualitative approach was used which included a case study, a document analysis, a questionnaire and a series of interviews. The subject of the case study was Sandbanks Provincial Park in Prince Edward County, Ontario. \nThe findings illustrated that there are elements and applications of the cultural planning process that can assist a community in efforts to improve or work towards establishing a relationship with its local provincial park. The cultural planning process emphasizes the use of a broad definition of culture and encourages a community to produce an inventory of its cultural resources. This helps to illustrate the value a provincial park contributes to the landscape of an area. The cultural planning process also emphasizes the importance and potential for interaction and communication between different sectors of a community, including the provincial parks. Although Prince Edward County is a leader in cultural planning, it does not yet have a perfectly interactive relationship with its local provincial park. However, the plans, policies, forums and atmosphere produced by the cultural planning have established an environment that is conducive to improving the relationship between Sandbanks and the County. \nBased on the findings of this research, recommendations have been made to the County, Sandbanks Provincial Park and the Ontario Parks organization. This research will contribute to the literature that exists regarding cultural planning, valuable landscape models and relationships between a community and the nearby provincial park.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".