The affordable housing, transportation, and food nexus: Community gardens and healthy affordable living in Calgary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examining community gardens in Calgary was initiated in collaboration with the non‐profit organization, Sustainable Calgary, as part of their housing‐transportation‐food nexus initiative. The main research objectives were to determine the socio‐economic demographics of neighbourhoods that support community gardens and the proximity of community gardens to active transportation and public transit. Methods included the use of GIS visualization and quantitative analyses to investigate relationships between demographic variables of neighbourhoods that support community gardens, as well as the accessibility of active transit routes and Light Rail Transit stations. Findings show that community garden neighbourhoods are located in neighbourhoods with significantly fewer visible minorities, higher levels of educational attainment, and more attached dwellings such as apartments and townhomes. The average distance of community gardens from a major bike lane is 330 m, while the average distance from a Light Rail Transit station is 1.78 km. This study suggests potential inequities that may be present within the proliferation of public community gardens based on socio‐economic factors other than economic capital. This paper concludes with a discussion surrounding implications and recommendations to further the equitable expansion of community gardens .
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".