MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7112679545

Evaluation Report - Connecting the Active Quarter

2025· report· en· W7112679545 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Explorer (The University of Manchester) · 2025
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrent UniversityNottingham Trent UniversityUniversity of Northampton
KeywordsBiddingReal estateQuarter (Canadian coin)Process (computing)Duration (music)Estate
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Following a fourth bidding round, in March 2023, West Northamptonshire Council were awarded £642,000 to build a new 1.3 km traffic-free route including cycle parking, seating and wayfinding (future delivery) within Delapre Park, accessible for those walking, wheeling and cycling. The scheme was bid for in response to previous insight from visitors who said the park becomes inaccessible for large periods of the year following rainfall. It was anticipated that the new paths would enable residents living in Far Cotton and the town centre to connect with employment opportunities, such as Brackmills Industrial Estate and the University of Northampton, as well as supporting the ongoing wellbeing and social prescribing projects at Delapré Abbey. Evaluation Design: Construction of the new routes and covered cycle parking were completed in Autumn 2024. The current evaluation was conducted between March and April 2025 to allow park visitors time to experience the new paths before seeking their feedback. The current evaluation is primarily a process evaluation because at least 12-months post-scheme completion is required to provide a robust outcome evaluation. Therefore, we provide visitors’ perceptions of the new paths (process evaluation) and only descriptive summaries of footfall and unique visits (outcome evaluation). This approach aligns with the monitoring and evaluation guidance of Active Travel England. Findings: Overall, our findings suggest that the new paths have provided a positive experience for the Park’s visitors with the wider and firmer surface making it easier for people to use year-round. However, a small number of visitors were still experiencing accessibility issues due to the loose top-dressing. Forty-seven percent of survey respondents who use the park for active travel journeys said the new paths increased the frequency of their active travel journeys. Twenty-three percent and 45% of online and intercept survey respondents, respectively, said the paths had or would increase their visits to the park and this was mainly because they would not get as muddy or feel as vulnerable to slips, trips, and falls. Wider accessibility issues within the park, raised by visitors, focused on the need to upgrade other mud-trodden paths (such as the entry point to Delapre Lake), the presence of localised flooding (notably in the Outer Garden), and the distance of Disabled Bay parking spaces from Delapré Abbey, which require further focused investigation outside of this project. The provision of more seating had been a long-standing request from the Park’s visitors, so the inclusion of seating within the scheme was welcomed but requires some amendments in future projects to meet Government guidance to ensure adequate resting places are at least provided at 150 metre intervals(1). The plans for updated wayfinding across the park to replace the multiple forms of outdated wayfinding was welcomed by respondents. Respondents wanted the new wayfinding to align with best practice for accessibility, use materials that were in-keeping with the Park’s natural environment and heritage, raise awareness for the different users of the park, and identify the distances of different looped routes in the park. Based on these findings, the evaluators propose the following recommendations: Short-term recommendations • Monitor the compaction of the top-dressing throughout summer to determine whether remedial work is required to remove excessive build-up, subject to funding being available. • Future schemes should relocate or add additional benches to meet the recommended 150-metre maximum spacing. • Identify additional funding options to install additional seating so all paths are serviced with adequate places to rest, such as donated memorial benches. • Present the draft wayfinding designs to park users to gain further feedback before installation. • Ensure the bollards at Eagle Drive have at least 1.5 metre spacing between them. • During the installation of new wayfinding, remove outdated wayfinding to reduce visual clutter as it effects the visitor experience. Medium-term recommendations • Conduct a follow-up assessment of the automated count data to determine the impact of the new paths on footfall. Further recommendations • Explore the feasibility of extending the new paths up to the edge of Delapre Lake to create a viewing platform as this is a common destination and resting point for people who visit the park. • Explore the feasibility of further path improvements around Delapre Lake to create a full looped path. • Explore the feasibility of path improvements through the Outer Garden to protect the ground from heavy footfall and vehicles. • Continue to proactively engage residents in discussions to ensure their parks meet their wants and needs. • Produce and communicate a full accessibility audit of the park so people can plan their visits. (1) Department for Transport (2021). Inclusive Mobility: A guide to best practice on access to pedestrian and transport infrastructure. UK Government. URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-mobility-making-transport-accessible-for-passengers-and-pedestrians

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.197
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.197
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0810.019

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 head0.227
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Explorer (The University of Manchester)→Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→