Can Placemaking in Canadian Public Greenspaces Bring Suburban Communities Together? Case Studies of City Park Community Gardens in Mississauga, Ontario and Surrey, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to understand how placemaking in public greenspaces can help to build a stronger place identity for suburban communities. The paper addresses the research question, “how can planners encourage placemaking in public greenspaces?” by examining park community gardens in two cities, Mississauga, Ontario and Surrey, British Columbia, as case studies. I conclude that a more collaborative and inclusive approach is needed in the planning, design, and management of public greenspaces. I draw upon a conceptual framework based on environmental planning, radical planning, and resource mobilization theory, with a focus on three major themes of interest: the connection between community and nature, the typology of nature in a place, and people in the public realm. My investigation includes primarily virtual site observations and interviews using qualitative research methods. My research findings emphasize the significant role placemaking plays to help strengthen community ties between people and nature using community gardens in suburban city parks as a successful example.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".