An Investigation into Security in Single-Stall Washrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this report is to explore the best possible methods of decreasing misuse and vandalism in UBC’s single-stall washrooms. This research was prompted by UBC Access and Diversity’s concerns regarding the recent trend of students using single-stall washrooms, mainly the ones located in Koerner Library, as private study rooms. This issue creates problems for other users as a legitimate user may be unable to access proper washroom facilities when needed, should any in the vicinity be taken up by students abusing the space. The conclusions found in this report will also pertain to the limitation of vandalism in UBC’s washroom facilities, although this issue is secondary to the concerns in regards to misuse and therefore research was performed primarily with misuse as the main focus. The proposed solutions are to be simple to implement, relatively inexpensive and in particular will not limit accessibility for any potential users. Therefore this report will be targeting as wide a demographic as possible, including both students and non-students. Three main methods of deterrence were found to be most effective. The first is signage employing positive wording to encourage users to limit their time spent in the washroom and not to vandalise. The second is room lighting tied to a timer set off upon entrance into the washroom. The third is signage indicating clearly the phone numbers and other descriptive information as to who to contact to report vandalism. It was found that due to their incredibly simple premise and their excellent cost to effectiveness ratio, the addition of descriptive signage with positive wording placed in UBC’s single-stall washroom facilities will serve as the absolute best deterrent to misuse and vandalism. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".