ASSESSING PUBLIC PARKS FOR CHILDREN IN LONDON, ONTARIO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parks are an important feature of the local built environment. It is suggested that whether (or not) high quality public parks are available in the local environment has a significant influence on physical activity levels among youth. This study examines the location and quality of neighbourhood parks (n=208) in a mid-sized Canadian city (London, Ontario) to determine if these public facilities are adequately and equitably distributed throughout the city. A geographic information system was used to map and analyze the spatial distribution of public parks in urban and suburban neighbourhoods of varying socioeconomic characteristics. Neighbourhoods were differentiated using 2001 socio-economic data from the Census of Canada aggregated to City of London planning districts. Comprehensive field surveys were conducted at each park (n=208) in every non-rural district in order to assess quality. The preliminary findings of this study suggest that there is no systematic socio-spatial pattern of inequity with respect to park provision. Better information about neighbourhood play spaces is crucial in the struggle against childhood obesity as physical activity is one of the most important ways to curb obesity. With this information, planners and policy makers can begin to make interventions to make neighbourhoods healthier for children.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".