UBC Aquatic Centre Universal Change Rooms : Designing for Inclusivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE - Our target was to identify the levels of comfortability, demographic factors and user experience with universal change-rooms at the ARC fitness facility at UBC. METHOD - We conducted in-person and online surveys which were posted in UBC social groups to gather our data. The survey started off with a Health Promotion and Physical Activity Research Consent form to ensure that the contributor decided to participate in the study off of their own accord and understood the purpose and use of the study. Our survey consisted of 10 statements regarding the quality of experience and feelings of comfortability/safety regarding universal change-rooms at the ARC fitness centre. Participants were asked to indicate their feelings on a 5-point Likert scale regarding each statement at the time of testing. After conducting the survey, we conducted statistical analysis on the data gathered and established mean and median values as well as percentages to determine which end of the Likert-scale the majority of the population was skewing towards. RESULTS - We found that eight out of the ten questions from the survey showed a positive response towards universal change-rooms whereas, areas regarding staff knowledge and preference of using the change-rooms had a more negative response. We also determined that most individuals that participated in the survey either strongly agreed with our statements or strongly disagreed. To mitigate the challenges regarding staff knowledge and influencing user preference positively towards universal change-rooms, we have proposed three recommendations including: 1) increasing the number of informative signs around universal change-rooms, 2) improve information advertisement to students regarding the use and purpose of universal change-rooms and 3) upgrading staff training to enhance the quality of student experience. By implementing these changes, ARC fitness can eventually increase user comfortability and enhance experience with universal change rooms. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".