Realtors’ Perceptions of Social and Physical Neighborhood Characteristics Associated with Active Living: A Canadian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Realtors match home-seekers with neighborhoods that have built and social characteristics they desire to pursue active lifestyles. Studies have yet to explore realtors' perspectives on neighborhood design that supports active living. Using qualitative description, our study was to explore the perceptions and understandings of neighborhood design (walkability, healthy, bike-ability, vibrancy, and livability) among urban residential realtors. Nineteen (6 men; 13 women; average age 48 years) self-identified residential realtors from Calgary, Edmonton, and Lethbridge (Canada) completed semi-structured telephone interviews. Content analysis identified themes from the interview data. Specifically, walkability was described as: perceived preferences, destinations and amenities, and connections; a healthy community was described as: encourages outdoor activities, and promotes social homogeneity; bike-ability was described as: bike-ability attributes, and was controversial; vibrancy was described as: community feel, and evidence of life; and livability was described as: subjective, and preferences and necessities. Our findings can inform the refinement of universal definitions and concepts used to in neighborhood urban design.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".