Evidence synthesis - A systematized literature review on the associationsbetween neighbourhood built characteristics and walking among Canadian adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evidence to date suggests that the built environment has the potential to facilitate and even discourage physical activity. A limitation of previous reviews is that they have typically not been country-specific. We conducted a systematized literature review of quantitative studies that estimated associations between the built environment-which were objectively measured-and walking among Canadian adults. METHODS: Five scientific databases were searched for peer-reviewed studies published in all years up to December 31, 2016, that estimated the association between the built environment (i.e. objectively measured using audits and Geographic Information Systems [GIS]) and physical activity among a sample of Canadian adults. The database searches, title and abstract screen, full-text review and data extraction were undertaken by two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 4140 articles identified, 25 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies included data from a single Canadian province. All but two studies were cross-sectional. Most studies captured self-reported walking for transportation and walking for any purpose. Overall walkability and land use were consistently associated with walking for transportation, while proximity to destinations was associated with walking for any purpose. CONCLUSION: Our review findings suggest that the built environment is potentially important for supporting adult walking. Overall walkability, land use and proximity to destinations appear to be important given their association with transportation walking and walking for any purpose.
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 | 0.019 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.041 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".