Urban Form Relationships with Walk Trip Frequency and Distance among Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the relationship among objectively measured urban form variables, age, and walking in youth. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analyses of travel diary data mapped against urban form characteristics within a 1-km buffer of participant's place of residence. Setting. Youth in the Atlanta, Georgia region with selection stratified by income, household size, and residential density. SUBJECTS: A total of 3161 5- to 20-year-olds who completed 2-day travel diaries. Diaries of those under 15 years were completed by a parent or legal guardian. MEASURES: Walking distances were calculated from a 2-day travel diary. Residential density, intersection density, land use mix, and commercial and recreation space were assessed within a 1-km network distance around residences. Analysis. Logistic regression analyses were performed for each urban form variable by age groups controlling for the demographic variables. All variables were then entered simultaneously into an analysis of the whole sample. RESULTS: All five urban form variables tested were related to walking. Recreation space was the only variables associated with walking across the four different age groups. All the urban form variables were related to walking in the 12 to 15 years age cohort. For this group, the odds of walking were 3. 7 times greater for those in highest- versus lowest-density tertile and 2.6 times greater for those with at least one commercial and 2.5 times greater for those with at least one recreational destination within 1 km from home. In the analysis of the full sample, number of cars, recreation space, and residential density were most strongly related to walking. CONCLUSIONS: Access to recreation or open space was the most important urban form variable related to walking for all age groups. Children aged 12 to 15 years old may be particularly influenced by urban form.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".