MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411393899 · doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128927

How good is your basket of parks? A combined index of park quality and accessibility for youth

2025· article· en· W4411393899 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Karl El Murr, Frédéric Cournoyer, E. Owen D. Waygood, Geneviève Boisjoly

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban forestry & urban greening · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersMitacs
KeywordsIndex (typography)Quality (philosophy)GeographyUrban parkForestryPublic parkEnvironmental planningEnvironmental protectionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parks and green spaces are essential components of urban areas as they provide ecological, economic, health and social functions. Their positive outcomes are closely linked with both the quality of the parks as well as their accessibility, especially via walking and cycling. This is particularly relevant for youth who largely depend on active modes for independent travel. To date, most studies have focused on a single component (quality or accessibility). To our knowledge, no study has measured the quality of a group of parks accessible to an individual. This study, therefore, proposes a methodology to generate an index that combines accessibility and quality: the Combined Index of Parks Quality and Accessibility for Youth (CIPQAY). The index is designed by combining a recently developed quality index, the “QUality Index of Parks for Youth” (QUINPY) with cumulative-opportunity accessibility measures, and is then applied to the city of Montreal, Canada. The QUINPY variables and scores are adapted to reflect the combined quality of accessible parks, based on five criteria: structured play diversity, nature, park size, safety, and maintenance. Using open-source data, the CIPQAY is then operationalized based on the study context and data availability. The final index contains 17 variables and is computed for each residential lot (n = 374,599). Findings show a low correlation between the CIPQAY index and the number of parks accessible, highlighting the relevance of this composite index. This research provides researchers and planners with a systematic methodology, transferable to other contexts, to measure the quality of parks accessible to individuals. • A comprehensive index, combining park quality and accessibility, is developed. • Low correlation is found between this index and the number of parks accessible. • This index better reflects attractiveness than common accessibility indicators. • The methodology can be adapted to other contexts and cities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban forestry & urban greeningSame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207