Parks and Recreation Settings and Active Living: A Review of Associations With Physical Activity Function and Intensity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to review reported associations between parks and recreation settings (PRSs) as features of the built environment and various functions and intensities of physical activity (PA). METHODS: By searching 4 major databases for the years 1998 to 2005, 50 articles were uncovered that reported quantitative relationships between PRSs and PA. RESULTS: Most articles showed some significant positive relationships between PRSs and PA. PRSs were more likely to be positively associated with PA for exercise or utilitarian functions than for recreational PA. Mixed results were observed for the associations between PRSs and both moderate and vigorous PA, but PRSs were commonly associated with walking. CONCLUSIONS: The studies indicated links between PRSs and PA and provided evidence for the contributions parks and recreation makes as part of the "health care" system within communities. Because of the ubiquity of PRSs and their potential contributions to active living, these relationships merit further exploration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".