Bibliographic record
Abstract
In our current architectural discourse of sporting design in Canada, we tailor our sports facilities to harness the energy of the masses, to watch the World’s elite compete on an Olympic or an international scale. The vast majority of the population are however, not elite athletes, but everyday participants engaging in athletics, community and sporting culture. With a significant rise in obesity levels1 in Canada, and the decline in participation in organized sport2, focusing on physically engaging the majority of the population is rapidly becoming a greater priority. \n \nThis thesis will examine the relationship between architecture and sporting facilities in two parts: A) what are the spatial typologies that define recreation and sporting facilities? Building on the results of part A, part B will determine what proportion of these spatial typologies will promote growth amongst users. \n \nPart A will be developed through the summation of current sport sociology research, architectural research, and planning studies, all focused on sport and recreation facilities. Part B occurs once comprehensive spatial categories are established. These categories will be used to analyse a series of recreation facilities that will be dissected based on the individual and group spatial typologies. Patterns arising from this dissection will be cross-referenced to growth or decline rates at each facility; determining whether specific spatial patterns promote or discourage growth. Furthermore, these patterns will be cross-referenced again with survey data from participants of these facilities to confirm the strength of the correlations. Sailing programs in Alberta and surrounding areas will act as a case study for the type of facility being examined. This 3-part study will display the relative success or failure of the inclusion or exclusion of typological elements3. \n \nAfterwards, these results will be presented, and then summarized in a design guideline. The guideline is aimed at informing architects, planners and program planners about the types and proportions of core programmatic elements that help make a recreation facility successful. Finally, this guide will be applied to an existing facility as a trial run, and the results, limitations and conclusions will be documented. \n \nThe aim of this thesis is to inform everyday sport and recreation design by providing a design guideline focused on defining the core components of these facilities, and in what proportion they are necessary to have higher levels of growth and retention amongst their user base. \n \n 1\t Navaneelan Tanya, Teresa Janz “Adjusting the scales: Obesity in the Candian population after correcting for respondent bias” (2014) Catalogue No. 82-624-X \n 2\t Unknown, “Sport Participation 2010” Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (2013) Catalogue No. CH24-1/2012E-PDF \n 3\t Refers to “Physical Activity Relationships (PAR)” (Koski, 2008) and “Alternative sport programmes and social inclusion in Norway” (Skille, 2006)
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.005 |
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".