Neighbourhood differences in objectively measured physical activity, sedentary time and body mass index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is limited Canadian research examining whether directly measured physical activity (PA) and body mass index (BMI) differ between neighbourhoods with different objectively measured socioeconomic (SES) and recreation (REC) environments. Purpose: To determine whether mean adult PA levels, sedentary time and BMIs were different across four neighbourhoods with contrasting SES and REC environments in Ottawa, Canada. Methods: This study employed a cross-sectional design to collect pilot data of objectively measured height, weight and PA (using accelerometry) and self-reported covariates in 113 adults (≥18 years). Four contrasting neighbourhoods (high REC/high SES, high REC/low SES, low REC/high SES, and low REC/low SES) were selected based on data collected as part of the Ottawa Neighbourhood Study. Analysis of covariance and logistic regression were used to perform neighbourhood comparisons for PA, sedentary time and BMI, adjusting for age, sex and household income and possible interactions. Post-hoc comparisons using Tukey’s test were performed. Results: Significant neighbourhood-group effects were observed for light intensity PA and sedentary time. Post-hoc tests identified that the low REC/high SES neighbourhood had significantly more minutes of light PA than the low REC/low SES (Mdiff = 56.05 minutes·day, Tukey p = 0.01). Unadjusted BMI differed between the four neighbourhoods, but the differences were not significant after controlling for age, sex and household income. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that light PA and sedentary time differ between neighbourhoods of varying REC and SES environments after controlling for differences in age, sex and household income. Findings also suggest that other area-level factors may explain these neighbourhood differences.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".