MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012805980 · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.12.005

Influence of social and built environment features on children walking to school: An observational study

2013· article· en· W2012805980 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Linda Rothman, Teresa To, Ron Buliung, Colin Macarthur, Andrew Howard

Bibliographic record

VenuePreventive Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesHospital for Sick ChildrenCanada Research Chairs
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyBuilt environmentGerontologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the proportion of children living within walking distance who walk to school in Toronto, Canada and identify built and social environmental correlates of walking. METHODS: Observational counts of school travel mode were done in 2011, at 118 elementary schools. Built environment data were obtained from municipal sources and school field audits and mapped onto school attendance boundaries. The influence of social and built environmental features on walking counts was analyzed using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: The mean proportion observed walking was 67% (standard deviation=14.0). Child population (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.36), pedestrian crossover (IRR 1.32), traffic light (IRR 1.19), and intersection densities (IRR 1.03), school crossing guard (IRR 1.14) and primary language other than English (IRR 1.20) were positively correlated with walking. Crossing guard presence reduced the influence of other features on walking. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large observational study examining school travel mode and the environment. Walking proportions were higher than those previously reported in Toronto, with large variability. Associations between population density and several roadway design features and walking were confirmed. School crossing guards may override the influence of roadway features on walking. Results have important implications for policies regarding walking promotion.

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)0.002
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 score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations94
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreventive MedicineSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207