MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7067724114

National Urban Parks : a comparison between National Urban Parks in Canada and Sweden

2015· other· en· W7067724114 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEpsilon Archive for Student Projects (University of Southampton) · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Labor Relations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational parkVisitor patternWildernessTourismThreatened speciesWilderness area
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thesis’s main aim was to explore definitions and concepts of national urban parks and the concept urban wilderness compare the Rouge National Urban Park, Toronto, Canada with the Royal National City Park, Stockholm, Sweden. Objectives for the parks, their management, regulations, visitor information, challenges and other aspects were compared considering the different national approaches.
\nA literature review was carried out to study the concept of the national urban park designation in particular in the two studied countries. The history of the designation, their management objectives and regulations, were investigated. Both parks were visited to get an impression about the nature of the parks and about aspects as visitor information. In addition an interview was carried out with the Rouge Park management and a workshop regarding the cultural landscape of the Royal National City Park in Stockholm was attended.
\nThe Royal National City Park in Stockholm was the first national urban park designated worldwide 20 years ago. The Rouge National Urban Park was legalised in May 2015, but the transfer of land and titles is still in process.
\nNational urban parks can also be found in other countries, for example Finland, which today has eight national urban parks. This study shows that despite differences between the two parks regarding national legislation, size (the Rouge National Urban Park will be two or three times the size of the Royal National City Park), context, and access, there are also similarities. Before the Royal National City Park and the Rouge National Urban Park became national urban parks, exploitation plans threatened to destroy valuable natural and cultural areas within the park. With the support of the nearby population and other stakeholders, the landscapes in the parks could be protected.
\nThis study shows how important it is to take care of our nature resources close by and in our cities. This is important for people’s health, wellbeing and to be able to reconnect with nature. Through these areas people reconnect with nature and may realize and prioritise nature areas protection both near and far. These nearby nature areas are also important as areas with high biodiversity, for ecosystem services and as recourses against environmental problems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it