Spatial access to sport facilities from the multiple places visited and sport practice: Assessing and correcting biases related to selective daily mobility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies investigating the association between spatial accessibility to environmental resources from the various places a person visits during daily activities and use of corresponding resources often do not account for potential biases related to selective daily mobility. This bias occurs when accessibility is also measured from places intentionally visited to access the resources of interest. The aim of this study was to examine associations between spatial accessibility to sports facilities from multiple places and sport practice while addressing the selective daily mobility bias. METHODS: The second wave of the RECORD Cohort was used to examine the relationship between the spatial accessibility to sport facilities and the practice of three sport categories (swimming, racket, and team sports), using multilevel linear probability models (n = 5327 participants) adjusted for individual and contextual characteristics. Street network distance to the nearest sport facility was considered as a measure of spatial accessibility [from the residence; from the residence and workplace; from all visited locations (full activity space), biased; and from all locations excluded those visited for sports (truncated activity space), corrected]. RESULTS: The residential and residential-workplace accessibility to facilities was not associated with sport practice. The spatial accessibility to facilities from all places visited (full activity space) was associated with the practice of the three categories of sports (biased relationships). After correcting the bias (truncated activity space), the strength of the relationships was markedly reduced. An association remained only for swimming sports. CONCLUSION: This study underlines the need to account for selective daily mobility bias when determining spatial accessibility to resources from the various places visited. Such bias, if not addressed, may result in overestimated associations between spatial accessibility and use, leading to potentially erroneous conclusions in terms of planning.
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 | 0.023 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".