When perception is reality: examining perceived accessibility of recreational public spaces through social space production
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
Social space production theorizes space as a socially constructed phenomenon, comprising of the expectations of society, technical design decisions, and the physical features that result. This theorization of space is especially relevant to recreational public spaces (e.g. parks, playgrounds, community centres) in low-income settings. This is because, the power linkages between technical decisions and neo-capitalist influence, have in some instances, translated to physical features for recreation that do not meet societal expectations or ideals on use. However, recognized opportunities of use (i.e. perceived accessibility) are yet to be examined through the physical, technical, and social facets that collectively guide considerations, as theorized in social space production. Our study hence adopts social space production as a lens to examine perceived accessibility to public recreational spaces in low-income residential contexts. Participatory mapping interviews with resident leads in a low-income residential context in the United States, revealed three thematic considerations. The themes were namely: physical ease of use, planning and design experiences, and social interactions with and within space. Our findings demonstrate that multifaceted considerations, which are pertinent to physical, technical, and social aspects of social space production, are informative to perceived accessibility.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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