The Heart of Britannia : Utilizing Care Ethics to Envision a DIY Skatepark
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Britannia Courts, a DIY skatepark in East Vancouver, has become an important hub for skateboarders across Greater Vancouver since its inception in 2017. The skatepark helps to meet the needs of the community with a new space for skateboarding, which Vancouver has not seen since 2011, along with a novel community-oriented design. All of the features at Britannia Courts are built by the community and made primarily out of wood, allowing them to be rearranged for different skateboard skill levels and a variety of events that take place there. As wood degrades quickly in Vancouver, the materiality also requires the community to work together to repair and maintain the space. This has led to a level of care, respect, and responsibility for a public space that is rarely found in Vancouver. Despite Britannia Courts’ vibrancy, it has yet to be included within the Britannia Renewal plan. This project, in response to this, envisions Britannia Courts within the Master Plan, particularly within the central commons (referred to as ‘the heart of the community centre’). Inspired by the profound sense of care at Britannia Courts, this project establishes a novel design approach that extends care ethics to landscape architecture and tactical urbanism. In doing so, it exemplifies the interconnected roles of landscape architects and communities to create inclusive public spaces.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".