MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162972172

How Urban Residents Use Block Parks? : Report of Observation Surveys in Sabae City, Fukui Prefecture

2004· article· ja· W7162972172 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
和子 田中, 和紀 高芝, 勇 服部, Kazuko TANAK, Kazunori TAKASHIBA, Isamu Hattori

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageja
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban and spatial planning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlock (permutation group theory)City blockMorningUrban parkTime of dayQuarter (Canadian coin)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to clarify the roles and significance of urban parks for residents who use them in their daily life.Generally, urban parks are planned to provide people open space with natural atmosphere and greens in urbanized areas.Among urban parks managed by municipal governments, block parks are the smallest type and placed most abundantly.In this study, observation surveys in daytime in Sabae City, Fukui Prefecture, were conducted to know why people come to or what people do in block parks from September to December of 1998.The selected three block parks are located in residential, commercial, and industrial zones.The collected data make clear the following evidence : (1) the numbers of daytime users depend on the location of block parks.Many people cross the block parks in commercial zones, while a few people come to the block parks in industrial zones and spend time there.(2) Many female users appear in block parks at weekdays, while more male do at weekends.(3) Purposes of usage changes with time from early morning to evening.The frequency of usage purpose depends on users' generation and gender, weekdays or weekends, location of block parks, and extents of block parks.For example, "adult women cross block parks in daytime of weekdays," "infant and small children play with their parent or grandparent at weekday mornings," "pupils play after school," "aged persons gather to take exercise at a relatively big block park in early morning of weekends," and so on.However, young people like to stay away of block parks.(4) The majority of users stay in block parks only in three minutes or less, whereas the others stay there for a while but mostly shorter than thirty minutes.(5) Many users play, enjoy strolling, or walk with their dogs, family members, or friends in block parks.On the other hand, individual users without companions take rest or walk there.Residents enjoy block parks in various ways in different occasions irrespectively of their generations.Block parks are one of familiar open space for urban residents.However, block parks will be required to be improved for disabled persons to easily access and to stay.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)Same topicUrban and spatial planningFrench-language works237,207