MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900995494 · doi:10.23880/jenr-16000107

Relationship between the Demographic Characteristics of Park Users and Park Based User Activities: The Case of Stanley Park and Queen Elizabeth Park

2017· article· en· W2900995494 on OpenAlexaff
Takyi SA

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecology & Natural Resources · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicKorean Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueen (butterfly)Urban parkNational parkGeographyForestryEcologyArchaeologyEnvironmental planningBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The changing roles of urban parks to cover a wider range of functions have made the study of the park use and user characteristics necessary for the advancement of knowledge and contribution to policy decisions.This research examines the relationship between the demographic characteristics of park users and park based user activities.A survey was conducted to collect the requisite data for this research.A total of 374 and 351 park users were interviewed in Stanley Park and Queen Elizabeth Park respectively.The study showed that active park activities such as jogging and biking is mostly influenced by age and gender with the younger age group category dominating in these activities.On the other hand passive park activity such as enjoying scenery is mostly dominated by the adult population.The study further showed that most park users use Stanley Park and Queen Elizabeth Park for their recreational activities because of ecological benefits such as connection to nature, access to fresh air and aesthetics from the natural environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ecology & Natural ResourcesSame topicKorean Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207