An exploratory study of popular interpretations of sustainable urban green space design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates the perceptions and opinions of site users for sustainable, urban green space design priorities, as defined in recent academic publications. For investigating, analyzing and prioritizing the lay interpretation of sustainable, urban green space, a tool was developed and applied. Local knowledge was gathered via on-site survey and incorporated by means of a mixed analysis. Analysis of results generated a set of sustainable, urban green space design priorities. Findings indicate that a consistent interpretation of sustainability that is primarily socio-ecologic and integrative in nature prevails among the user group of the Alf Hales Memorial Trail and John Galt Park Guelph, Ontario study site. Survey respondents prioritized 'Ecologic' and 'Participative' themes highly; 'Cognitive' and 'Equitable' themes moderately; and 'Economic' and 'Sensorial' as the lowest priority. Design strategies that are relevant and meaningful to users, who interact with the landscape, will enhance urban green space as valuable community resources now and for the future, and in this way, may be considered sustainable. The process of investigation may be applied to other similarly situated sites in southwestern Ontario.
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 | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".