Type and Proximity of Green Spaces Are Important for Preventing Cardiovascular Morbidity and Diabetes—A Cross-Sectional Study for Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at determining the role of proximity to specific types of green spaces (GSes) as well as their spatial location in the relationship with the most morbid cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and diabetes. We measured the accessibility to various types of GS and used a cross-sectional approach at census Dissemination Area (DA) levels in the Montreal and Quebec City metropolitan zones for the period 2006-2011. Poisson and negative binomial regression models were fitted to quantify the relationship between distances to specific types of GS and CVD morbidity as well as some risk factors (diabetes and hypertension) while controlling for several social and environmental confounders. GSes that have sports facilities showed a significant relationship to cerebrovascular diseases: the most distant population had an 11% higher prevalence rate ratio (PRR) compared to the nearest, as well as higher diabetes risk (PRR 9%) than the nearest. However, the overall model performance and the understanding of the role of GSes with sport facilities may be substantially achieved with lifestyle factors. Significantly higher prevalence of diabetes and cerebrovascular diseases as well as lower access to GSes equipped with sports facilities were found in suburban areas. GSes can advantageously be used to prevent some CVDs and their risk factors, but there may be a need to reconsider their types and location.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".