How Important Is Having Amenities Within Walking Distance to Middle-Aged and Older Adults, and Does the Perceived Importance Relate to Walking?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined how important walking to amenities (e.g., food store, park) is to middle-aged and older adults and whether this relates to walking. The relationship between walking to amenities and overall activity level was also explored. METHOD: The study was based on interviews conducted with 778 individuals aged 45 to 94 years. Overall activity level was measured objectively using pedometers. RESULTS: A large proportion of participants did not think it was very important to have amenities within walking distance, and the majority of participants drove to get there, even among individuals who reported it was very important to have the amenities within walking distance. Self-reported walking to certain amenities (e.g., park) was associated with overall activity. DISCUSSION: The study underscores the impact of a car culture where the tendency to drive is paramount. It suggests the need to promote the importance of walking as part of an active, healthy lifestyle.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".