Gender, toilets, and the planning gap: A United Nations framework analysis of Canadian municipal parks policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gender and toilets are intimately connected. According to the United Nations (UN), access to sanitation, inclusive of toilets, within public spaces is a human right, and tied to the Sustainable Development Goals to achieve gender equality. A framework was developed to assess the provision of toilets in public spaces and includes five criteria: availability; accessibility; affordability; quality and safety; and acceptability, privacy and dignity. The framework links access to sanitation/public toilets and gendered rights. Canada lacks good quality public toilets in most places, including public parks, and there is no research on how Canadian cities consider the needs of women and transgender and gender‐diverse people for public toilets in their parks and recreation master plans. Therefore, we undertook a content analysis of parks and recreation master plans of Canadian municipalities using the UN framework. We did so to understand if decision makers consider gendered access to sanitation in public parks, and whether cities are meeting their human rights obligation on toilets as determined by the UN. Our results found there is a planning gap around gendered access to public toilets in planning policies and many municipalities are not meeting their human rights obligations to access to sanitation and gender equality .
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".