MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407719195 · doi:10.1016/j.cities.2025.105809

Urbanization, housing, and inclusive design for all? A community-based participatory research investigation of the health implications of high-rise environments for adolescents

2025· article· en· W4407719195 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Adrian Buttazzoni, Lindsey Smith, Ryan Lo, Alexander Wray, Jason Gilliland, Leia Minaker

Bibliographic record

VenueCities · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityHealthy Minds CanadaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsUrbanizationCitizen journalismEnvironmental planningParticipatory action researchEconomic growthCommunity-based participatory researchSociologyPolitical scienceGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing numbers of families are living in high-rise residences and densified areas of urban centres due to ongoing urbanization. A better understanding of how these environments impact the health of residents is of growing importance for planners and public health practitioners alike. Yet knowledge of the links between high-rise living and specific cohorts like adolescents is lacking. Moreover, youth perspectives are typically ignored in urban planning and building design practices. To address these issues, the present paper employs a community-based participatory research (CBRP) approach that is paired with the Theory of Affordances to investigate how adolescents ( n = 22) in two Canadian cities perceive high-rise living and dense environments to impact their mental and physical health. Data was collected between July and December 2023 through geo-tracked, participant-led ‘go-along’ (i.e., walking) interviews (40–120 min) roughly 1 km in length. Inductive thematic analyses supported by an analysis of the captured photos were completed. Noted positive affordances related to high local activity density, rich pedestrian social landscapes, restorative designs, and linkages between built and social environments. Negative affordance themes included poor social control and vitality, risky design legibility, signs of decay, and passive or limited active use designs. Future study is recommended to explore relational, or culturally/socially important public places or designs, and length of residence aspects of the relationship between high-rise living and adolescent health. Implications for design and health practitioners are discussed. • More young people are set to live in high-rise neighbourhoods due to urbanization. • Go-along interviews explored teen views of high-rise neighbourhood design affordances. • Positive affordances included local activity density, built and social landscape linkages. • Negative affordances included risky design legibility, social discord, signs of decay. • Planners may consider density designs that support teen needs for play, exploration.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.151
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCitiesSame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207