Pathways of learning about biodiversity and sustainability in private urban gardens
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
Nature-based solutions directed at improving biodiversity, on both public and private land, can provide multiple benefits, but many of these benefits are not being fully realised. One reason is the normative and cognitive disconnect between people and nature, highlighting the need for new learning programs to foster better nature connections. More is known about learning in the context of community gardens than in relation to private gardens. Using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis, this study explores learning among residents engaged in home gardening for biodiversity in Winnipeg, Canada. We uncovered diverse and interconnected learning processes/activities founded on formative childhood experiences. The processes/activities were non-formal and informal, and included individual, social and blended experiences. Learning outcomes were also mutually influencing and multi-levelled, comprising normative, cognitive/behavioural and relational changes. The results support an analytical framework suggesting how learning-focused initiatives can enhance biodiversity on private property and aid in delivery of nature-based solutions.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it