Perspectives on Active Transportation in a Mid-Sized Age-Friendly City: “You Stay Home”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Active transportation is an affordable and accessible form of transportation that facilitates the mobility of older adults in their communities. Age-friendly cities encourage and support physical activity and social participation among older adults; however, they often do not adequately address active transportation. Our goal was to identify and understand the constraints to active transportation that older adults experience in order to inform the development of viable solutions. METHODS: Focus group interviews were conducted with community dwelling older adults (n = 52) living in the City of Oshawa in Ontario, Canada; each focus group targeted a specific demographic to ensure a diverse range of perspectives were represented. Data were analyzed to identify themes; sub-group analyses were conducted to understand the experience of those from low socioeconomic status and culturally diverse groups. RESULTS: Themes pertaining to environmental, individual, and task constraints, as well as their interactions, were identified. Of particular novelty, seemingly non-modifiable constraints (e.g., weather and personal health) interacted with modifiable constraints (e.g., urban design). Culturally diverse and lower socioeconomic groups had more favorable perspectives of their neighborhoods. CONCLUSION: While constraints to active transportation interact to exacerbate one another, there is an opportunity to minimize or remove constraints by implementing age-friendly policies and practices.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".