Neighborhood Resources Associated With Active Travel in Older Adults—A Cohort Study in Six European Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study associations between perceived neighborhood resources and time spent by older adults in active travel. METHODS: Respondents in six European countries, aged 65-85 years, reported on the perceived presence of neighborhood resources (parks, places to sit, public transportation, and facilities) with response options "a lot," "some," and "not at all." Daily active travel time (total minutes of transport-related walking and cycling) was self-reported at the baseline (n = 2,695) and 12-18 months later (n = 2,189). RESULTS: Reporting a lot of any of the separate resources (range B's = 0.19-0.29) and some or a lot for all four resources (B = 0.22, 95% confidence interval [0.09, 0.35]) was associated with longer active travel time than reporting none or fewer resources. Associations remained over the follow-up, but the changes in travel time were similar, regardless of the neighborhood resources. DISCUSSION: Perceiving multiple neighborhood resources may support older adults' active travel. Potential interventions, for example, the provision of new resources or increasing awareness of existing resources, require further study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".