The association between parents' perceptions of neighbourhood walkability and children's physical activity and screen time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Because parents are important gatekeepers of children’s activities, the purpose of this study was to determine if parents’ perceptions of the neighbourhood environment influence the amount of physical activity (PA) and screen time their children engage. Methods: Between 2009 and 2011, 669 children aged 6- to 10-years participated in wave 2 of a longitudinal cohort study in Edmonton, Alberta. The children wore SC-T2 pedometers for 4 consecutive days (minimum of 3 valid days) and parents reported their child’s PA and screen-time. Parents also completed the Neighbourhood Environment Walkability Scale – Abbreviated (NEWS-A), which assesses perceptions of the neighbourhood environment (e.g., residential density, land-use mix, aesthetics, crime, parking, cul-de-sacs). Multivariate linear regressions were run, controlling for socio-demographic variables. Results: Diversity of land-use mix was positively associated with total steps (B = 574.61, p < .01) and weekday steps (B = 614.07, p < .01), while lack of parking was positively associated with weekend day steps (B = 625.79, p < .05). Having a greater number of cul-de-sacs was positively associated with reported weekend activity (B = 14.15, p < .05). Aesthetics was negatively associated with total, weekday, and weekend day screen time (B = -106.09, p < .01; B = -60.64, p < .05; B = -44.52, p < .01; respectively). Conclusion: Parents’ perceptions of their neighbourhood, including destinations to walk to, a lack of parking and a greater amount of cul-de-sacs, may encourage children to engage in more PA. Further, the perceived aesthetics of the environment may discourage screen time.Acknowledgments: This research was funded by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".