MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394094293 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.25066136

Patterns of human activity paired with census data for the largest city parks in Toronto, Canada

2024· dataset· en· W4394094293 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alessandro Filazzola, Garland Xie, Katie Birchard, Namrata Shrestha, danny brown, Scott MacIvor

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusGeographyCartographyDemographySociologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dataset contains spatial and temporal data on urban parks and their usage in Toronto, Canada. It was used to examine how anonymized mobility data from Mapbox can help identify and reduce inequality in the availability and use of green spaces. The dataset consists of four files:Toronto 2021 Census.shp: A shapefile that contains census data for the park catchments in Toronto, including variables such as housing density and car ownership.greenSpaceActivityWithWeather.csv: A spreadsheet that contains the daily Mapbox activity value for each park, as well as the average temperature and total precipitation from local weather stations.Simplified Large Parks.shp: A shapefile that contains the polygons of the target parks used in the study, which are larger than 10 hectares and have more than 1000 visits per year.Park amenities.csv: A spreadsheet that contains the amenities available in each park, such as sports fields, transportation options, gardens, and playgrounds.The dataset supports a manuscript published in People and Nature titled: “Using anonymized mobility data to reduce inequality in the availability and use of urban parks”. The manuscript presents the methods and results of the analysis, as well as the implications and recommendations for urban planning and policy.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
GenreDataset

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→