Does time spent in the residential neighbourhood moderate the relationship between neighbourhood walkability and transport-related walking? a cross-sectional study from Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Studies have investigated the influence of neighbourhood walkability on residents' walking behaviour, aiming to increase physical activity and reduce dependence on automobiles. Previous research, however, has not considered how the amount of time spent in the residential neighbourhood may modify this relationship. Our objective was to determine how time spent in the residential neighbourhood affects the relationship between neighbourhood walkability and walking for transport. DESIGN: Using a cross-sectional sample of 2411 adults, we analysed the association between walkability (an index combining land-use mix, dwelling density and street connectivity) and transport-related walking (controlling for the effects of gender, age, income, self-rated health and regular access to private transport) testing for interactions by time spent in the neighbourhood. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Minutes spent walking for transport per week. SETTING: Toronto, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged 25 to 65. The survey had a 72% response rate. RESULTS: After adjusting for potential confounders, the walkability index was weakly associated with walking (1 SD of walkability score is associated with 0.25 more minutes walking/week, p<0.01). Land-use mix was more strongly associated with walking than the walkability index. Time spent at the residential neighbourhood modified the relationship between land-use mix and transport-related walking in a dose-effect manner (p<0.01), those spending 5 hours on average at their residential neighbourhood have 0.2 min/day more walking for each additional land-use mix score and those spending 12 hours have 0.5 min/day more walking for each additional land-use mix score. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that walkability is associated with increased walking time, but it is modified by time spent in the neighbourhood. Our study underscores the importance of testing 'time spent in the neighbourhood' as a modifier of environmental exposures in studies of environmental correlates of 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".