Outdoors and Active : A Look into UBC’s Greenspaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this report, we explore the rates of usage and awareness of outdoor spaces across the UBC campus. The goal of this study was to understand the current levels of awareness/usage, barriers that keep people from using outdoor spaces, or facilitators that encourage them to use these spaces. The research focused on three different types of spaces, defined by UBC Recreation, which are built spaces, natural spaces, and cultivated spaces. The target population for the study included all members of the UBC community who currently study, live, and/or work at UBC. The mixed-methods surveys were distributed through social media, physical posters, or person-to-person interactions. After a response period that lasted between March 18th - April 3rd, 87 responses were gathered, and some key findings were discovered. Awareness of all 3 types of spaces was relatively high overall; every space we had in the survey had an awareness level of >50%. The usage rates were much higher in the natural spaces overall, both built and cultivated outdoor spaces lagged behind. Some key things noticed about these usage rates were that outside of the natural spaces, usage was often only high in areas that were considered central to campus (i.e., MacInnes Field and the Rose Garden). Based on the qualitative feedback that was received, there were some common barriers that people identified that kept them from using these spaces. One of these barriers was the issue of overcrowding. For example, a super crowded MacInnes field on a summer day doesn’t have a lot of space for people to play sports like soccer and frisbee. Another issue that people mentioned often was the issue of safety, in particular for trails like the one in Pacific Spirit Park. Some people reported they didn’t feel safe walking through areas like this due to a combination of a lack of proper lighting or a fear of walking alone. The social aspect of this was also a common theme in all other areas, many people reported not using the spaces as often because they don’t have a group of friends to go to them with, which discourages their participation. Finally, another barrier mentioned often was the weather in Vancouver. A lot of places, like the skatepark and basketball courts, are unsafe to play on during rainy weather, so as it rains for the majority of the year in Vancouver (especially in the months where students are at school), it makes these spaces harder to use. Some recommendations that we have come up with through doing this report include the following. An example of a recommendation we had was to organize social groups for walks/hikes around the natural and cultivated environments, as that would eliminate the barrier of feeling unsafe for people, and could encourage other members who felt isolated to utilize these spaces. Coverings for some outdoor spaces like the tennis courts, basketball courts, and skatepark could also be a way to increase utilization year-round so that it is not fully weather dependent. A final longer-term recommendation would be to create an app that could organize all of the spaces together and display the times when these spaces are available to use for the public (and whether or not they are free). If these recommendations are implemented, we think it will further ingrain physical activity into the UBC culture. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".