Destinations That Older Adults Experience Within Their GPS Activity Spaces
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
Identifying the relevant geography is an ongoing obstacle to effectively evaluate the influence of neighborhood built environment on physical activity. We characterized density and diversity of destinations that 77 older adults experienced within individually representative GPS activity spaces and traditional residential buffers and assessed their associations with accelerometry-measured physical activity. Traditional residential buffers had lower destination density and diversity than activity spaces. Activity spaces based only on pedestrian and bicycling trips had higher destination densities than all-mode activity spaces. Regardless of neighborhood definition, adjusted associations between destinations and physical activity generally failed to reach statistical significance. However, within pedestrian and bicycling-based activity spaces each additional destination type was associated with 243.3 more steps/day (95% confidence interval (CI) 36.0, 450.7). Traditional buffers may not accurately portray the geographic space or neighborhood resources experienced by older adults. Pedestrian and bicycling activity spaces elucidate the importance of destinations for facilitating active transportation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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