Neighbourhood walkability, leisure-time and transport-related physical activity in a mixed urban–rural area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. To develop a walkability index specific to mixed rural/suburban areas, and to explore the relationship between walkability scores and leisure time physical activity. Methods. Respondents were geocoded with 500 m and 1,000 m buffer zones around each address. A walkability index was derived from intersections, residential density, and land-use mix according to built environment measures. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to quantify the association between the index and physical activity levels. Analyses used cross-sectional data from the 2007-2008 Canadian Community Health Survey (n = 1158; ≥18 y). Results. Respondents living in highly walkable 500 m buffer zones (upper quartiles of the walkability index) were more likely to walk or cycle for leisure than those living in low-walkable buffer zones (quartile 1). When a 1,000 m buffer zone was applied, respondents in more walkable neighbourhoods were more likely to walk or cycle for both leisure-time and transport-related purposes. Conclusion. Developing a walkability index can assist in exploring the associations between measures of the built environment and physical activity to prioritize neighborhood change.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".