“At the end of the day, it is Council’s decision”: Integration of health and equity into urban design and urban planning decisions and policies in Regina Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While there is a wealth of literature on the impact of urban design on health, our understanding of the factors that influence integration of health into urban design is limited. With the growing recognition of cities playing a leading role in enhancing health equity and population health outcomes, there is a need to examine the perspectives and experiences of municipal actors around health and equity. To address this gap, we interviewed 30 stakeholders engaged with urban design policy- and decision-making at the City of Regina in Saskatchewan, Canada. We found a lack of shared understanding of health among municipal actors. Our findings identified a number of factors that serve as facilitators and barriers to integrating health and equity in urban design policies. Findings from this case study deepen our understanding of these factors and provide recommendations for developing healthy urban design policies. Our findings underscore the importance of adopting an integrated and holistic approach for healthy and equitable urban design. As urbanisation continues to bring a greater share of the world’s population into urban areas, it is imperative that we deepen our understanding of how municipal governance can be leveraged to create environments that are conducive to the wellbeing of their residents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".