MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6990226862

Defining and Exploring Public Space: Young People's Perspectives from Regent Park, Toronto

2008· dissertation· en· W6990226862 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2008
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegentNeighbourhood (mathematics)Public spaceCitizen journalismValue (mathematics)Context (archaeology)PopulationPublic housingLiberian dollarPlan (archaeology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Young people have not traditionally had a voice in urban planning. More often than not, they are incorporated into planning by either considering them as an implicit population or as part and parcel of planning for families (Knowles-Yanez, 2002; Freeman and Aitken-Rose, 2005; Frank, 2006). This is now recognized as one of the shortcomings of urban planning. This study seeks to address this gap within a specific context of urban revitalization and public space within a public housing development. \n\tThis study explored how young people between the ages of 10 and 16 living in Regent Park, Toronto define and value local public spaces. Their perspectives are particularly relevant at this time as their neighbourhood is in the process of a 15-year, multi-million dollar revitalization plan. This plan will bring about extensive physical and social changes to the neighbourhood. The key objectives of this study were to understand the perspectives of young people about their neighbourhood public space, to determine how young people’s perspectives match with revitalization plans and to adapt participatory research methods appropriate for young people. By using a participatory, multi-method approach, I set out to determine how young people understand public space and the extent to which this is incorporated into public housing revitalization. \n\tThe study findings show that the contemporary principles guiding public housing revitalization do not match how young people define and value public space. Findings reveal that young people have a broad definition of public space which encompasses public, quasi-public and private spaces. They also demonstrate that understanding public space involves both physical and social elements. This is incorporated into their ideas regarding revitalization. Young people placed more of an emphasis on social than physical solutions. Key to the findings are young people’s preferences for a neighbourhood network of walkways over through streets, maintaining community insularity, local landmarks and culture and their fears over losing these due to change brought about by new residents. Many public space elements were regarded as simultaneously positive and negative. They regard the revitalization process of their neighbourhood public spaces with mixed emotions, including trepidation, scepticism and hope. In this way, study findings add to the existing literature on young people and urban planning. Young people have a distinctive way of experiencing the urban environment and when asked in an appropriate manner, will share revealing insights that would not necessarily have been thought of by adults (Hart, 1997). \n\tThe study recommendations build upon the existing literature on the participation of young people in urban planning. This study shows that there is a need for planners to work alongside local community agencies and organizations already involved with young people. There is also a need to reconsider how planners address the issues of equity and public engagement. Young people do not have a political voice. For this reason, it is important for planners to consider the principles of equity and advocacy in a manner that embraces strategies for planning with multiple publics. Planners need to be educated and made aware of the different methods to appropriately engage young people. This includes adapting participatory techniques, determining agents of community access and self-reflexivity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0240.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207