A Systematic Review of Agreement Between Perceived and Objective Neighborhood Environment Measures and Associations With Physical Activity Outcomes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of review studies document associations between the perceived and objectively measured neighborhood environment and physical activity. However, current evidence does not discern whether perceived or objective variables more consistently predict physical activity. A review is needed to examine the comparability of these variables and the consistency of their respective associations with the same physical activity outcome. We systematically searched three databases for studies that examined agreement between perceived and objective measures and/or associations between comparable variables and physical activity. We abstracted 85 relevant peer-reviewed studies published between 1990 and 2015, synthesized agreement coefficients, and compared these variables’ associations with physical activity. Perceived neighborhood environment variables were significantly associated with physical activity ( p < .05) at slightly higher rates than objective neighborhood environment variables (20.1% and 13.7%). Comparably defined variables exhibited low agreement and only 8.2% were associated with the same outcome. The perceived neighborhood environment and objectively measured neighborhood environment are related but distinct constructs that account for unique variance in physical activity.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it