Equal Opportunity Streets: Assessing the Equity of Publicly Provisioned Street Trees in Walk Zones Surrounding Elementary Schools
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the previously established, social, economic, and healthful benefits of nearby nature in local environments, we argue that the provision of publicly funded street trees as a positive urban environmental exposure should be considered as an “environmental justice” issue. Accordingly, the study examines the distribution of street trees within a 10-minute walking radius around elementary schools in four communities of different sizes in Ontario, Canada, to assess potential levels of “exposure” to these positive natural features among school-age children of different sociodemographic backgrounds. A geographic information system incorporating detailed geodatabases of pubic trees and elementary schools in Stratford, Woodstock, Brantford, and London was used to analyze the spatial distribution of trees in relation to the socioeconomic characteristics of neighborhood walking zones around every elementary school. Our findings indicate that the spatial distribution of street trees in the immediate vicinity around the schools in the four southwestern Ontario cities studied closely mirrors the pattern of socioeconomic distress in those same cites. The findings point to a greater need for municipal planners, policymakers, and community-based organizations to carefully consider the socioeconomic characteristics of neighborhoods to ensure that future tree planting efforts are conducted in an equitable manner and targeted to the areas with the greatest need for the associated benefits they provide.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it