Measuring Active Living Environments: An international comparison between Canada and Wales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThe impacts of the built environment on health is a widely studied international area of research. One area of research is how urban morphology (e.g. active living environments, also known as neighbourhood walkability) may promote healthy behaviour within a population. However urban morphology and data relating to the built environment varies across different countries. ObjectivesOne of the challenges in international studies is producing consistent, comparable measures of the built environment, in this case active living environments. As part of a study which compares the impact of neighbourhood environments on health outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), neighbourhood-level measures for walkable environments were derived for Canada and Wales using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). MethodsUsing method based upon the Canadian Active Living Environments Database (Can-ALE) we created walkability indicators for Wales, UK. We created GIS models using OpenStreetMap and Office for National Statistics (ONS) Open Data to produce walkability metrics for each Lower Layer Super Output Area (LSOA) in Wales for linkage into the SAIL databank. We compared the GIS generated walkability metrics for Wales with those produced for Canada to evaluate whether the GIS methods are internationally transferable in the context of generating walkability indictors and associations with T2D. FindingsThis work highlights the challenges in creating internationally comparable environmental exposure metrics. The differences in urban morphology and scale in Canada and Wales are significant, however this work demonstrates how with considered methodological choices these differences can be overcome to generate comparable built environment indicators. ConclusionsThe generation of comparable walkability indicators for the built environment has allowed subsequent analysis into hospital admissions for people living with T2D in Caranda and Wales. This study has wider implications for international research into the impacts of the built environment on population health and are reproducible on future studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".