Landscape design for everyday wellness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The loss and degradation of our natural environments is increasing at an alarming rate. Within the urban environment there is very little evidence of natural environments left, and what does still exist has been significantly impacted by human activity. Not only is there a need to restore and reintroduce nature back into the urban context for the health of the environment, but as well for the health of the human population. The “biophilia hypothesis” suggests that human beings have an innate connection to nature, and need this connection for their general well-being. The University of Manitoba Fort Gary campus is an everyday environment for many students seeking a post secondary education in Winnipeg, MB. It is a place that students and staff experience on a daily basis, and where high levels of stress and anxiety are ever apparent. This practicum explores how landscape and theories of biophilia can be utilized in the context of a post-secondary institution to mediate the negative impacts stress can have on well-being in this environment. Designing exterior spaces for the well-being of people will encourage a reconnection with nature, wildness, wonder, and awe that we are beginning to lose sight of as we continue to move towards a technology dependent world. An understanding of the various theories surrounding biophilia, wellness, and the environment is outlined in a literature review, resulting from an examination of existing research. Following research, a focused site analysis of the University of Manitoba Fort Gary Campus was conducted and resulted in a design at varying scales and levels of detail incorporating aspects from each stage of the design process.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.003 |
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".