Vancouver community gardeners perceptions on soil health and contamination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Reclaiming and converting brownfields into green spaces, such as community gardens, is a growing trend especially in Vancouver, British Columbia. Although community gardens provide a wide amount of benefits: health, social, and environmental, there are potential risks when growing and eating food from contaminated soil. Gardeners must take the proper precautions to reduce their exposure to such contaminants such as having their soil tested. Methods: The researcher gathered information via an online survey from 23 community gardens in Vancouver, British Columbia. Survey participants were asked questions regarding garden site history, soil contamination and overall gardening knowledge. Results: A total of 101 community gardeners participated in the study. The typical survey respondent was female, 30-49 years old, had less than 10 years of gardening experience with Bachelor degrees. It was found that no association exists between having soil testing and the location of the garden, park vs. non-park (p = 0.89712). Again, there is no association between the location of the community garden and gardeners’ feelings that their soil is safe and contaminant-free (p= 0.39521). Conclusion: Gardening in soil that has previously been contaminated through industrial processes poses a potential health concern. Despite this concern, community gardeners refrained from soil testing and remain confident in the safety of their garden’s soil. The absence of soil testing indicates a gap in the safety standards for community gardens. Therefore, mandatory and annual soil testing should be implemented with Vancouver’s community gardens to ensure the health and safety of gardeners.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".