Sociodemographic Moderators of Relations of Neighborhood Safety to Physical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate gender, race/ethnicity, education, and income as moderators of relations of perceived neighborhood crime, pedestrian, and traffic safety to physical activity. METHODS: Participants were from two samples: adults (N = 2199, age = 25-65 yr) and older adults (N = 718, age = 66+ yr) from high- and low-walkable neighborhoods in the Washington, DC, and Seattle, Washington, areas. Neighborhood safety and transportation and leisure walking were assessed via survey, and moderate to vigorous physical activity was assessed using accelerometers. Sociodemographic moderators were investigated using interaction terms and follow-up within-group tests from mixed-effects regression models. RESULTS: Overall direct effects of safety on physical activity were not found, with one exception. Seven interactions were found in each sample. Interactions were found for all physical activity outcomes, although total moderate to vigorous physical activity was involved in more interactions in adults than older adults. Half of the interactions revealed significant positive relations of pedestrian and traffic safety to physical activity in the more affluent/advantaged group (i.e., high education, high income, and non-Hispanic white) and null associations in the less affluent/advantaged group. Race/ethnicity was a moderator only in older adults. One-third of the interactions involved gender; half of these involved crime safety. Interactions involving crime safety showed nonsignificant positive trends in the more affluent/advantaged group and women and nonsignificant negative trends in the less affluent/advantaged group and men. CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic moderators of neighborhood safety explained some of the variation in adults' and older adults' physical activity. Patterns suggested positive associations between safety and physical activity in participants with more affluent/advantaged sociodemographic characteristics, although some patterns were inconsistent, particularly for gender. More refined conceptualizations and measures of safety are needed to understand if and how these constructs influence physical activity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".