Participation in Community Gardening: Sowing the Seeds of Well-Being: Participation au jardinage communautaire : pour semer les graines du bien-être
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: Sustaining well-being challenges people with serious mental health issues. Community gardening is an occupation used to promote clients' well-being, yet there is limited evidence to support this intervention. PURPOSE.: This paper examines how facilitated community gardening programs changed the subjective well-being and social connectedness of people living with mental health issues. METHOD.: A community-based participatory research approach and qualitative methods were used with 23 adults living in supported housing and participating in supported community gardening programs. A constructivist approach guided inductive data analysis. FINDINGS.: Participation in community gardening programs enhanced well-being through welcoming places, a sense of belonging, and developing positive feelings through doing. The connection to living things and responsibility for plants grounded participants in the present and offered a unique venue for learning about gardening and themselves. IMPLICATIONS.: Practitioners and service-users should collaborate to develop leadership, programs, places, and processes within community gardens to enhance well-being.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".