Adaptive management in sustainable park planning and management: case study of the city of Vancouver Parks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The delivery of quality park services through the provision of sustainable park infrastructure relies on efficient park management systems. The objective of this study is to help improve the theoretical basis of urban park planning processes by assessing how park management systems respond to the changing needs of park users. The data for this study were collected from both secondary and primary sources. Historically, the management of parks in the City of Vancouver has not been approached by one particular model but rather a combination of the elements of the public, for-profit model and the public, non-profit model. However, these models were not strategically laid down to guide the development of parks but rather came along with the incremental development of parks in the City of Vancouver. Similar to the historical approach to park management, the contemporary park management system of the City of Vancouver still rely on the hybrid model consisting of the elements of different park management models. However, the functions of the various stakeholders have changed over time. The adaptation of park management strategies to changes in the socio-economic characteristics of park users has helped to meet the diverse needs of city residents. The future of park management relies on the effective partnership between the public and private sector. The emergence of revenue generating park management strategies has necessitated the need for park administrators and policymakers to put in place measures to address income disparity in the use of parks.
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) | 0.000 | 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".