MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776508642 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189472

Place matters: A longitudinal analysis measuring the association between neighbourhood walkability and walking by age group and population center size in Canada

2017· article· en· W2776508642 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rania Wasfi, Madeleine Steinmetz-Wood, Yan Kestens

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
KeywordsWalkabilityNeighbourhood (mathematics)DemographyGerontologyPopulationLogistic regressionMedicinePsychologyGeographyEnvironmental healthPhysical activityPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the influence of walkability on walking behaviour and assessed whether associations varied according to life-stage and population center (PC) size. Walkability scores were obtained for the six-digit postal codes of residential neighbourhoods of 11,200 Canadians, who participated in biennial assessments of the National Population Health Survey from 1994 to 2010. Participants were stratified by age-group. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to estimate the influence of cumulative exposure to neighborhood walkability on utilitarian and exercise walking by PC size and life-stage. Associations of neighbourhood walkability with utilitarian and exercise walking varied according to age-group and PC size. Exposure to high walkable neighborhoods was associated with utilitarian walking in younger and older adults in all PC sizes, except for older adults living in a medium PC. Living in a highly walkable neighborhood in a large PC was associated with walking for exercise in younger (OR: 1.42; 95%CI: 1.20-1.67) and older adults (OR: 2.09; 95%CI: 1.51-2.89). Living in highly walkable neighbourhood in a medium PC was associated with walking for exercise in older adults (OR: 1.62; 95%CI: 1.15-2.29). These results emphasize the need to consider the size and nature of every community, and the age-group of a population when implementing strategies to promote 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 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)0.004
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations35
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207