Everyday Walking Among Older Adults and the Neighborhood Built Environment: A Comparison Between Two Cities in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A walkable neighborhood becomes particularly important for older adults for whom physical activity and active transportation are critical for healthy aging-in-place. For many older adults, regular walking takes place in the neighborhood and is the primary mode of mobility. This study took place in eight neighborhoods in Metro Portland (USA) and Metro Vancouver (Canada), examining older adults' walking behavior and neighborhood built environmental features. Older adults reported walking for recreation and transport in a cross-sectional telephone survey. Information on physical activity was combined with audits of 355 street segments using the Senior Walking Environmental Audit Tool-Revised (SWEAT-R). Multi-level regression models examined the relationship between built environmental characteristics and walking for transport or recreation. Older adults [N = 434, mean age: 71.6 (SD = 8.1)] walked more for transport in high-density neighborhoods and in Metro Vancouver compared to Metro Portland (M = 12.8 vs. M = 2.2 min/day; p < 0.001). No relationship was found between population density and walking for recreation. Older adults spent more time walking for transport if pedestrian crossing were present (p = 0.037) and if parks or outdoor fitness amenities were available (p = 0.022). The immediate neighborhood built environment supports walking for transport in older adults. Comparing two similar metropolitan areas highlighted that high population density is necessary, yet not a sufficient condition for walking in the neighborhood.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".