Woodward's: Urban Design and Public Space-- Measuring a Sense of Place
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Woodward’s opened its doors in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside in 2010 and has provided socially mixed housing, indoor and outdoor public spaces, and various amenities in the area (Enright, 2010). As the Downtown Eastside progressively changes, the Woodward’s development has had a large impact in the area’s revitalization (Urban Land Institute, 2014). Both the indoor atrium and outdoor urban park and public plaza have provided the surrounding community with new areas for engagement and socialization. These spaces have now been in place for five years. In order to comprehensively evaluate how these spaces are currently functioning, this research project used the Project for Public Spaces (PPS) Successful Place Criteria to observe and assess the public areas. The main research question that was addressed in this report is: \n \nHow are the urban design features of the public spaces in the Woodward’s development creating a sense of place? \n \nTo adequately answer this question, the research method used three different types of data collection, which allowed for a thorough analysis and also ensured strong construct validity. The three methods consisted of a brief review of the relevant literature, an observational survey, and interviews for validation purposes. The survey used a likert scale to evaluate the areas based on the PPS (2015) Successful Place Criteria. Jan Gelh’s (2010) Criteria for Evaluating Public Spaces was then used to provide a comparative analysis. The report concludes by providing a series of ten recommendations to enhance the 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".