Bibliographic record
Abstract
With increasing globalization population growth, and urbanization comes an emerging need for urban planners to place increasing importance on quality natural and built spaces within the public realm in order to ensure the social sustainability of human settlements. Community gardens can address some of the problems associated with urbanization and its impacts on the quality of the urban environment, however although the benefits of community gardens are widely recognized, community gardens have yet to be incorporated into municipal planning and policy frameworks and are given no legislative or financial support from municipal governments in Calgary. Without proper urban planning that incorporates high quality public realm, green and open spaces, population growth, along with the redevelopment of established communities, poses both challenges and opportunities for Calgary's established communities. The goal of this study was to determine what policy and planning recommendations and incentives would encourage the expansion of community gardens in established communities in Calgary. This research explores the contributions of community gardens to community development, citizen engagement, and sense of place, articulates the need for increased community garden development, identifies the barriers to expanding community gardens, and makes planning and policy recommendations to support the expansion of community gardens in established communities in Calgary. Primary and secondary research was conducted through literature review, case study, participant interviews, and key informant interviews. Drawing on the experience of Vancouver and Seattle, the MOP provides recommendations for a set of regulatory measures to encourage further development of community gardens in Calgary. Research findings document a range of initiatives, incentives, and policies to promote, encourage and enable the successful growth of community gardens. Effective implementation necessarily depends on community-led grassroots efforts, complemented with balanced municipal support to expand the benefits of community gardens to a larger audience.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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".