Perceptions of the Neighborhood Built Environment for Walking Behavior in Older Adults Living in Close Proximity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research documents a discordance between perceived and objectively assessed neighborhood environmental features on walking behavior. Therefore, we examined differences in the perception of the same neighborhood built environment. Participants were grouped if they lived 400 m or closer to each other. The perception of the pedestrian infrastructure, neighborhood aesthetics, safety from crime, and safety from traffic was derived from a telephone survey from two North American metropolitan areas; 173 individuals were clustered into 42 groups. Older adults who walked for transport in their neighborhood experienced the same neighborhood as more walkable (β = .19; p = .011) with better pedestrian infrastructure (β = .16; p = .037). Older adults with physical limitations experienced the same neighborhood as less safe from crime (β = −.17; p = .030) and traffic (β = −.20; p = .009). The study supports the notion that individual behavior and physical restrictions alter the environment’s perception and explains part of the discordance between objective and subjective assessment of the neighborhood environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".