UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program: Universal Change Rooms Programming and Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The objective of the SEEDS research project was to acquire feedback from UBC students, faculty, staff, and surrounding community about the Life Building's universal change rooms. Purpose: To inform UBC’s Recreation team on how to best communicate about existing universal change rooms and what can be done to encourage future use. Methods: Participants were recruited from posters placed around the UBC Life Building and Woodward Instructional Resources Centre. Participating individuals were able to complete an online survey, and/or engage in open house in-person interviews regarding their experiences with universal change rooms. Results: The findings suggest that the UBC community approaches the use of universal change rooms with mostly positive or neutral views. Any criticisms expressed by participants often stemmed from miscommunication about the use, function and purpose of universal change rooms. Responses expressed concern with mixed gendered use of change rooms, and perceptions surrounding the facilities stigmatized use by certain marginalized groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community. Conclusion: It is suggested that the UBC Recreation team utilize methods such as personalized email and accessible website information to practice more effective knowledge translation to the public. These methods should be accessible and informative, featuring information such as the universal change room’s location, functions, purpose behind its implementation, and privacy rules. These strategies are expected to increase and improve awareness, perception, and use of universal change rooms by UBC students, faculty, staff and surrounding UBC community.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.004 |
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".