MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205650969 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/q75eh

Simulated nature walks improve psychological well-being along a natural to urban continuum

2021· preprint· en· W4205650969 on OpenAlexaff
Giuliana Brancato, Kathryne Van Hedger, Marc G. Berman, Stephen C. Van Hedger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHappinessFeelingPsychologyRandom walkGeographyMoodUrban environmentUrban forestSocial psychologyStatisticsMathematicsForestryEnvironmental planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compared to urban environments, interactions with natural environments have been associated with several health benefits including psychological restoration and improved emotional well-being. However, classifying environments dichotomously as either natural or urban may emphasize between-category differences and minimize potentially important within-category variation (e.g., forests versus fields of crops; neighborhoods versus city centers). Therefore, the current experiment assessed how viewing brief videos of different environments, ranging along a continuum from stereotypically natural to stereotypically urban, influenced subjective ratings of mood, restoration, and well-being. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four video conditions, which depicted a simulated walk through a pine forest, a farmed field, a tree-lined urban neighborhood, or a bustling city center essentially devoid of greenery. Immediately before and after the videos, participants rated their current emotional states. Participants additionally rated the perceived restorativeness of the video. The results supported the idea that the virtual walks differentially influenced affect and perceived restoration, even when belonging to the same nominal category of natural or urban. The pine forest walk significantly improved happiness relative to both urban walks, whereas the farmed field walk did not. The bustling city center walk decreased feelings of calmness compared to all other walks, including the tree-lined neighborhood walk. The walks also differed on two perceived restorativeness measures (daydreaming and being away) in a graded fashion; however, the farmed field walk was found to be less fascinating than all other walks, including both urban walks. Taken together, these results suggest that categorizing environments as “natural versus urban” may gloss over meaningful within-category variability regarding the restorative potential of different physical environments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207