Parental and Adolescent Perceptions of Neighborhood Safety Related to Adolescents' Physical Activity in Their Neighborhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between adolescent and parental perceptions of neighborhood safety and adolescents' physical activity in multiple locations and to investigate the moderating effect of sex within this association. METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted with 928 adolescents aged 12 to 16 years old and 1 of their parents. Adolescents and parents reported their perceptions of neighborhood safety (traffic safety, pedestrian safety, crime safety, and stranger danger safety). Adolescents reported how often they were physically active in multiple locations (physical activity in the neighborhood, in parks, and for active transport). Mixed-effects linear regression models were used to investigate these associations while controlling for demographics and the Walkability Index. RESULTS: Parent-perceived crime safety was positively associated with adolescents' physical activity in parks (B = .094, p = .024). Parent-perceived traffic safety was positively associated with adolescents' reported physical activity in the neighborhood (B = .186, p = .014). Adolescents' physical activity for active transport was positively associated with parent-perceived traffic safety (B = .179, p = .001), stranger danger safety (B = .110, p = .013), and crime safety (B = .077, p = .035). There were 2 interactions by sex on the relation between adolescent traffic safety perception and parent pedestrian safety perception in the neighborhood and adolescents' physical activity in parks (i.e., statistically significant only for boys). CONCLUSIONS: Parents' perceptions of traffic, stranger danger, and crime safety were all related to adolescents' active transportation. Multiple safety concerns may be motivating parents to restrict adolescent mobility by walking and bicycling.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".