Case Study on the Overseas Locally-Led Community Design Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the changing of social needs and paradigms, citizens are concerned about aesthetic and cultural community gardens from productive urban farms in Korea. It is still difficult, however, to cultivate a beautiful garden with a community to design, install and manage it. Therefore, this study analyzed the community garden design guidelines of other countries to derive the characteristics and implications. The research method analyzed six guidelines for community garden design in the UK, Canada, the USA, Australia and Japan. As a result of the study, most community garden design guidelines are opened freely via on-line service. The guidelines are composed with chronological processes such as intro, site selection, design, construction and maintenance. The introduction section treats definition, purpose, meaning, efficiency and success factors for community gardens. Site selection emphasizes site conditions (soil, light, shadow, water, etc.), landholding and insurance. The design section, however, lacks adequate drawings and case images. These guidelines offer little explanation with few illustrations and sentences. Construction sections explain about plantings, facilities, expense and details. The maintenance guidelines of community gardens contain how to control members, funding, harvesting, pests and plants. In addition, some guidelines include vandalism, organic cultivation methods, recording and advertisement. Lastly, the appendix contains a variety of checklists, administrative documents, guidelines, drawings, and contacts. This study will help understand the trends and characteristics of overseas community gardens design guidelines so as to also supply directions for guidelines to be introduced in Korea.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".