"It's not just for food" : women's perceptions of community gardens as places of health, wellbeing and community organizing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing popularity of community gardens in Norlh America is a result of their ability to simultaneously address the social, emotional, economic, physical and spiritual wellbeing and health of both individuals and communities (Wakef,reld et aL.,2007;Williams, 1998).While much of the community garden literature recognizes women's equal, and often prevalent participation, there has been very little exploration into their community garden experiences.That community gardens, particularly in the inner city context, are threatened by development makes understanding what community gardens bring to the lives of women gardeners, and what women gardeners bring to their community gardens and larger communities, impoftant areas to investigate in order to better understand how the wolnen and the communities of which they are a part of be affected by the potential loss of their gardens.The research presented in this thesis addresses this gap by exploring suburban and urban women's community garden experiences in V/innipeg, Manitoba, using semi-structured interviews with 12 urban and 12 suburban gardeners.These are supplemented by subsequent interviews with nine of the urban gardeners, three urban garden facilitators and a municipal counselor.The results highlight that issues around wellbeing and health provide a link between urban and suburban gardeners, who otherwise function independently from one another.In addition, the role wellbeing may play in facilitating a more unifîed and effective community garden network strongly emerged in the research.Furthermore, the results suggest that inner city community gardens represent a women-centered model of community organizing that is used to address community concerns and protect their gardens, and by extension their neighbourhoods.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".