The role of place types on social relationships and satisfaction as influenced by COVID and disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An individual's participation in community life is important to their health, well-being, self-determination, and quality of life. Consequently, community planners and policymakers play a role in shaping and improving environments through land use planning, including the distribution of amenities. This research explores the influence of different amenities, referred to as place types, and their influence on social satisfaction during and before the COVID-19 pandemic. A nationwide online survey of 393 adults across the U.S.A. was conducted to compare participants who self-report as living with and without a disability (41% and 59%, respectively). To uncover the relationship between place types and social satisfaction, participants responded to questions about social relationships, social satisfaction, frequency of visitation to place types, and the perceived importance of place types. Results indicate that the frequency of visits and perceived importance of place types were significantly associated with social satisfaction ( r = 0.30, p = 0.001). Disability status, income level, population density, and employment status significantly predicted reduced visitation frequency during the pandemic ( p < 0.001). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that individuals with disabilities experience a lower level of satisfaction with social life living closer to outdoor recreation ( p = 0.006) and healthcare facilities ( p = 0.025) compared to other place types. The findings emphasize the need for planners to better account for accessibility and inclusion in the design and combination of community amenities.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".