MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327572178 · doi:10.1080/14927713.2023.2187866

parkrun across the pond: examining location and event characteristics in Canada and the United States of America

2023· article· en· W4327572178 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jennifer Robertson‐Wilson, Shelby Rodden-Aubut, Jill Tracey, Morgan Miller, Henley Lapid

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure/Loisir · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemographicsGeographyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicEvent (particle physics)DemographySocioeconomicsMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mass participation events, such as ‘parkrun’, may be one option to encourage physical activity within communities. The purpose of the study was to describe the expansion of parkrun locations in Canada and the United States of America (USA) and identify and describe characteristics of parkrun locations. For each parkrun site, setting-level information was collected from selected websites. Findings revealed many parkrun events were started in 2019 with most locations offering a virtual option during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, parkrun events appear to be supported in cities/towns that vary in demographics. Two-thirds of USA parkrun cities were above the national average for individuals being within a short walking distance to a park; however, most parkrun locations are car reliant. There is room to expand parkrun where no events currently exist and additional research is needed to determine the degree to which area-level characteristics are associated with actual parkrun participation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure/LoisirSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207