Common measures of green and blue space for built environment, health equity and intervention research: a scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to describe self-report and audit-based measurement tools of green and blue space used for health equity and intervention research. This scoping review was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). In March 2022, we performed a literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus. We found 22 papers, six of which used self-report tools and 16 of which relied on audit-based measures to assess green or blue space. These tools measure aspects of blue and green space including accessibility, equipment, and use. The System for Observing Parks and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC) was most used followed by the Public Open Space Audit Tool (POST) and the Community Park Audit Tool (CPAT). The priority populations most often studied were residents of low socio-economic status/high disadvantage neighbourhoods, followed by racialized groups and women. This scoping review provides guidance on common measurement tools that can be used by researchers working on green/blue space for health equity and intervention research. No reliable and valid self-report measure was used or available in the literature to examine equity in green/blue space.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it