MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405759093 · doi:10.1177/0013916515623823

The Relation of Perceived and Objective Environment Attributes to Neighborhood Satisfaction

2016· article· en· W2405759093 on OpenAlexaff
Suzanna M. Lee, Terry L. Conway, Lawrence D. Frank, Brian E. Saelens, Kelli L. Cain, James F. Sallis

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Behavior · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWalkabilityDestinationsPsychologyScale (ratio)Level designBuilt environmentDiversity (politics)PedestrianEnvironmental healthGeographySocial psychologyApplied psychologyTransport engineeringMedicineComputer scienceEngineeringTourism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is growing evidence that communities can be designed to support physical activity, but it is important to understand whether neighborhood features related to health are also considered satisfactory by residents. The study aimed to determine if there is an association between perceived and objective neighborhood environment variables and neighborhood satisfaction. Adults ( N = 1,726) were recruited from neighborhoods in two regions of the United States selected to vary on walkability and income. Perceived neighborhood environment was assessed using a validated scale, objective measures were constructed using geographic information system (GIS), and satisfaction was assessed using a 17-item survey. Participants reported greater satisfaction when they perceived their neighborhood as having greater pedestrian/traffic safety, crime safety, attractive aesthetics, access to destinations, diversity of destinations, park access, and lower residential density. Objective measures were not significant. The discrepant findings between perceived and objective environmental measures indicate that neighborhood satisfaction is a complex construct.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations204
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and BehaviorSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207