Association between Neighborhood Active Living Potential and Walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the association between neighborhood active living potential and walking among middle-aged and older adults. A sample of 2,614 (61.1% women) persons aged 45 years or older and living in one of 112 census tracts in Montreal, Canada, were recruited between February and May of 2005 to participate in a 20-minute telephone survey. Data were linked to observational data on neighborhood active living potential in the 112 census tracts and analyzed through multilevel modeling. Greater density of destinations in the census tract was associated with greater likelihoods of walking for any reason at least 5 days per week for at least 30 minutes (odds ratio = 1.53, 95% confidence interval: 1.21, 1.94). Associations were attenuated but remained statistically significant after controlling for socioeconomic, health, lifestyle, and other physical activity characteristics. Sensitivity analyses showed that associations were robust across smaller and larger volumes of walking. No associations were found between dimensions of neighborhood active living potential and walking for recreational reasons. The authors conclude that a larger number and variety of neighborhood destinations in one's residential environment are associated with more walking and possibly more utilitarian walking among middle-aged or older adults.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".