Designing Inclusive Playscapes Across Sensorial + Socio-Spatial Boundaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our emotional experience in public environments is considered to be superficial, although their configurations impact how well we can see, hear, move around, and interact in them daily. ‘Lonely, but not alone’ describes many of today’s urban dwellers. For some people, participation in civic life can be challenging, especially since the barriers (physical, psychological, etc.) faced by some are not always apparent to others, even to designers. This Major Research Project explores the relationship between the level of playfulness expressed in an urban space and user experience. Along with case study investigations and the Delphi method, 42 citizens (estimated to be 21 years of age or older) participated via interviews in Toronto, Canada. An urban design framework of 64 playful design features called The Multi-Playscape Toolkit, which can be used by urban designers and architects, has been developed and now contributes to the knowledge base. \n Using the Toronto context, recommendations are provided to promote more urban playfulness, more lenient policymaking, and more inclusive design practices in our public spaces.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".