Interactive Effects of Built Environment and Psychosocial Attributes on Physical Activity: A Test of Ecological Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The principle of cross-level interactions of influence on behavior in ecological models is seldom studied. PURPOSE: To examine built environment × psychosocial interactive effects on physical activity. METHODS: Multi-level mixed regression analyses used data from the Neighborhood Quality of Life Study conducted in neighborhoods in two US regions (n = 2,199 adults). Outcomes were (1) objectively measured moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, (2) reported transport walking, and (3) leisure-walking. Conceptually matched built environment variables were analyzed for domain-specific outcomes. RESULTS: With leisure walking as the outcome, built environment × psychosocial interactions were significant in 7 of 20 models tested. Directions of interactions were consistent, indicating a stronger built environment-leisure walking association in adults with less favorable psychosocial status. Little evidence supported such interactions with objectively measured moderate-to-vigorous physical activity or transport walking as outcomes. CONCLUSION: The results imply that the built environment may exert stronger influence on adults who are not psychologically predisposed to be active.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it