Ambition biotop och succession : en studie av nutida naturinspirerad landskapsarkitektur
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fresh Kills park and the The High line park in New York, Downsview park outside Toronto the birch landscape at Shiphol Airport have something more in common than being big new park landscapes.They all include thoughts and images about ecology. These images are neither typically nature picturesque nor typically garden stylish. In Sweden we have the biotopes of Ankarparken, the new design of Kristinebergsparken. At Chelsea Flower Show in England Swedish nature put in a garden format is winning awards. There are some new ecological influence in the air. Investigating this trend, I try to understand the phenomena, in theory as well as in practice. The study is limited to the context of parks and how these are experienced. \n \nThoughts from the term "landscape urbanism" put together with theory about biotope construction and design form the theoretical base of my thesis. I refer to and reflect upon that base in the first part of the report. The landscape urbanists highlight the processes of landscape as an inspiration when working in the dynamic urban situation. The claim that the term landscape, as well as the word nature, today too often is connected to what´s rural and anti cultural. Instead, in terms of ecology, it could be a creative force in forming new shapes for sustainibility. Another theoretical and less abstract input to the theses is one about biotope design and contruction. It´s based on knowledge about ecology as well as about design. \n \nAnkarparken in Malmö and the yet not constructed Kristinebergsparken in Stockholm are two examples of the kind of parks I name biotope- and succession parks. I interview people involved in those projects. Their opinions and mine are summarized in two stories following the first theoretical one. The studies show a gap between a conceptual biotope concern in the design and an actual knowledge about ecology in the built situation. Another aspect of great importance in parks with dynamic ambitions is how maintainance is coped with. \n \nIn the final part of my thesis I link the studies of biotope- and succession parks to the design of a park outside Kungsbacka, Gothenburg. I discuss three aspects which I think are of certain interest - acceptance for change, reference pictures and the importance of scale and the relation between the visitor and the site. The thoughts have in common that they are all about formulating the purpose of the park, in an experience perspective. That, I think is a crucial question, which I think always need a site specific answer beside the ecological motives of the park.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".