Walk Score® and the prevalence of utilitarian walking and obesity among Ontario adults: A cross-sectional study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence from large, population-based studies about the association between neighbourhood walkability and the prevalence of obesity is limited. DATA AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 106,337 people aged 20 or older living in urban and suburban Ontario, who participated in the National Population Health Survey and the Canadian Community Health Survey from 1996/1997 to 2008. Based on their postal code, individuals were grouped into one of five walkability categories, ranging from very car-dependent to "Walker's Paradise," according to the Street Smart Walk Score®, a composite measure of neighbourhood walkability. Logistic regression models, adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic and lifestyle characteristics, were used to estimate odds ratios relating neighbourhood walkability to overweight/obesity and physical activity. RESULTS: Compared with residents of "Walker's Paradise" areas, those in very car-dependent areas had significantly higher odds of being overweight or obese. Despite similar levels of leisure physical activity among residents of all walkability areas, those in "Walker's Paradise" areas reported more utilitarian walking and weighed, on average, 3.0 kg less than did those in very car-dependent areas. INTERPRETATION: Living in a low-walkability area is associated with a higher prevalence of overweight/obesity. Neighbourhood walkability is related to the frequency of utilitarian walking.
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 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".