MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4234017080 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14653314.v1

Walking in a winter wonderland? an assessment of winter maintenance and physical activity features in Smythe Park, Toronto

2021· preprint· en· W4234017080 on OpenAlexaffabout
M Bianchi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClearanceNational parkSnowGeographySnow removalMeteorologyMedicineArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. To determine how the features, conditions, and maintenance of a low-income park affect the use of the park for physical activity during the winter months. Method. Direct observation of park use; assessment of park quality based on a developed assessment tool; and supplementary surveys with park users. Results. The park lacked winter park features (e.g. ice rink, tobogganing hill) and supporting amenities (e.g. washrooms, rental facilities). There was evidence of winter maintenance, however, it was inconsistent: most trails were cleared of snow on all visits, but large ice patches were present and had not been cleared. The park was used primarily for walking and dog walking, although respondents noted that the lack of maintenance in the park affected if they used it for physical activity. Conclusion. Winter maintenance of parks and the presence of winter features affect park use, with snow removal, ice removal, and the presence of bathrooms having a strong influence on physical activity levels in the winter months. Park planners should consider year-round maintenance and programming in order to promote engagement in physical activity during all seasons.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Green Space and Health→French-language works237,207→