Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Community gardens are increasingly popular in urban settings and offer a balance to work environments where technology and stress are common features. A community garden is any piece of land, gardened by a group of people, where vegetables and/or flowers are grown. Although community gardens differ in their purposes, in general, they foster the development of horticultural skills and provide opportunities for enhanced well-being through occupation. Community gardens enable people to meet and build their community, revitalize neglected areas, and provide access to green space for all people (Teig et al., 2009). Personal benefits include access to low-cost nutritious food, relaxation and opportunities for exercise (Wakefield et al., 2007). Despite the potential for positive health outcomes from community gardening, few studies have examined if and how this occupation influences self-perceived well-being among gardeners.\nStatement of purpose: The purpose of this exploratory qualitative research is to provide insight into the experiences of community gardeners and describe how gardeners believe that their participation in this occupation affects their health and well-being. The research question is: ‘How does participation in a community garden impact the perceived health and well-being of garden members?’\nDescription of methods: Adults who are community garden members were recruited from several sites in metro Vancouver. Semi-structured interviews are underway with 6-10 participants to gather data about their experiences of community gardening and well-being. Field notes form additional data and research journals are being utilized for reflexivity. The research design is informed by phenomenology i.e., the focus is on understanding lived experience and its meaning, and the data analysis is inductive. Data are being analyzed following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic data analysis process and guided by occupational science concepts.\nReport of results: It is anticipated that the findings will illuminate aspects of community gardening that that sustain and constrain well-being. Initial data indicate that gardening enables lifelong learning and contributes to the well-being of the local community, which affects participants’ health positively.\nObjectives for poster presentation: To discuss if and how occupations that require interaction with nature produce different health outcomes than those situated in other settings To generate ideas for community-based participatory research that explore how community gardening could promote the health and well-being of communities and individuals.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it