Individual, family, and neighborhood correlates of independent mobility among 7 to 11-year-olds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. Independent mobility refers to the freedom that children have to move around their neighborhood without adult supervision. It is related to their physical activity and health. We examined the intrapersonal, family, and neighborhood correlates of independent mobility within children. Methods. 497 American parents of 6.9-11.9 year olds completed a survey (November, 2014) that assessed their child's independent mobility range, several intrapersonal characteristics of their child (gender, age, race, etc.), several characteristics of their family (family structure, socioeconomic status, parental physical activity, etc.), and their perceptions of the safety of their neighborhood (18 questions reduced to 4 components). Associations were determined using ordinal logistic regression. Results. Children's age, parent's perception that their neighborhood is safe for children, and parent's fear of neighborhood crime were the independent correlates of independent mobility. Compared to 6.9-7.9 year olds, the odds ratio (95% CI) for increasing independent mobility were 2.31 (1.47-3.64) in 8.0-9.9 year olds and 3.38 (2.13-5.36) in 10.0-11.9 year olds. Compared to children whose parents who did not perceive that their neighborhood was safe for children, the odds ratio for increasing independent mobility was 4.24 (2.68-6.70) for children whose parents perceived their neighborhood was safe for children. Compared to children whose parents had the lowest fear of neighborhood crime, the odds ratio for increasing independent mobility was 0.41 (0.27-0.62) for children whose parents had the highest fear of crime. Conclusions. Children's independent mobility was associated with their age, their parent's perception that their neighborhood was safe for children, and their parent's fear of crime.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".