Leisure sedentary time and physical activity are higher in neighbourhoods with denser greenness and better built environments: an analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Associations of environmental variables with physical activity and sedentary time using data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging, and the Canadian Urban Environmental Health Research Consortium (Canadian Active Living Environments (Can-ALE) dataset, and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI, greenness) dataset) were assessed. The main outcome variables were physical activity and sedentary time as measured by a modified version of the Physical Activity for Elderly Scale. The sample consisted of adults aged 45 and older (n = 36 580, mean age 62.6 ± 10.2, 51% female). Adjusted ordinal regression models consistently demonstrated that those residing in neighbourhoods in the highest Can-ALE category (most well-connected built environment) reported more physical activity and sedentary time. For example, males aged 75+ in the highest Can-ALE category had 2 times higher odds of reporting more physical activity (OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.1–3.5) and 1.8 times higher odds of reporting more sedentary time (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.0–3.4). Neighbourhoods with higher greenness scores were also associated with higher odds of reporting more physical activity and sedentary time. It appears that an environment characterized by higher Can-ALE and higher greenness may facilitate physical activity, but it also facilitates more leisure sedentary time in older adults; research using device measured total sedentary time, and consideration of the types of sedentary activities being performed is needed. Novelty: Middle-aged and older adults living in neighbourhoods with higher Can-ALE scores and more greenness report more physical activity and leisure sedentary time Greenness is important for physical activity and sedentary time in middle-aged adults
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".