How do BPoC design professionals pursue environmental justice considerations when planning and designing recreational spaces?
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
Recreational spaces like parks and playgrounds play a vital role in community development. They serve as avenues for important experiences like physical activity, social interaction, and shared cultural expressions. However, BPoC (Black Person, and Person of Color) communities face disparate unjust environmental barriers to utilizing such spaces. Yet not much is known about how BPoC professionals in dedicated professional associations, could address such barriers through the pursuit of environmental justice when planning and designing recreational spaces. This study aims to address this lacuna in research. Findings from in-depth interviews demonstrate that in the design and planning of spaces for recreation, BPoC design professionals drew on their lived experiences from community history and personal encounters to: (1) foster opportunities for participation in design and planning processes (procedural justice), (2) address location-related concerns pertaining to systemic strains in resource allocation (distributive justice), and (3) integrate features that support socio-cultural relationships (interactional justice).
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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