MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320301678 · doi:10.32890/jbma2018.8.2.8805

Personal and Environment Factors Associated with Attraction to Tropical Urban Parks in Peninsular Malaysia

2018· article· en· W4320301678 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Huda Farhana Mohamad Muslim, Noor Azlin Yahya, Mohd Parid Mamat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business Management and Accounting · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationUrbanizationGeographyPublic parkUrban parkQuarter (Canadian coin)SocioeconomicsQuality (philosophy)AttractionResource (disambiguation)Environmental protectionEnvironmental planningEconomic growthEcologySociologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is increasing demand for urban parks as recreational areas amidst urbanization in Malaysia. Urban parks are the most readily accessible resource for interactions with nature across multi groups in many urban cities, including tropical cities. This paper reports a research conducted in 2013/2014 to determine the overall quality of visits and park users’ level of motivations in selected six public parks in Peninsular Malaysia. The result of this study which examined 2,139 park users’ in 2013/2014 level of motivation and overall quality of visit in selected six public parks in Peninsular Malaysia and the result shows that about three quarter of the users are youths between 17 and 36 years old. For the quality of visit attributes, park users rated “nature and environment” as the highest dimensions with mean score (M = 4.11). The statistical analysis showed that element of shadiness as an important factor for nature motivation. The common shadiness element experienced by urban park users were considered to be unique landscape and significantly different from Western and developed countries

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)0.000
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business Management and AccountingSame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207