Adolescents’ perceptions of walking and cycling to school differ based on how far they live from school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents perceive different barriers for walking versus cycling to school. This study examined whether adolescents’ perceptions of walking and cycling differ by home-to-school distance. Adolescents (n = 1,401; age: 15.1 ± 1.4 years; 55.1% females) completed an online survey about their school travel and perceptions of walking and cycling to school in Dunedin, New Zealand. Based on home-to-school distance, adolescents were categorised into three groups: ‘walkable’ (≤2.25 km; n = 455), ‘cyclable’ (>2.25-≤4.0 km; n = 286) and ‘beyond cyclable’ distance (>4.0 km; n = 660). Rates of active transport to school decreased with increasing distance (‘walkable’/‘cyclable’/‘beyond cyclable’: 60.1%/16.4%/1.2%; p<0.001). For walking to school, attitudes (experiential and instrumental beliefs), subjective norms and behavioural intentions decreased with increasing distance (all p<0.001) whereas perceived behavioural control did not change significantly. For cycling to school, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control decreased (all p<0.001) whereas experiential and instrumental beliefs and behavioural intentions were not different across the distance groups. As home-to-school distance increased, self-efficacy for both walking and cycling to school decreased whereas personal and environmental barriers, safety-related concerns and convenience of driving for trip chaining increased (all p<0.001). Absence of cycle lanes and low interest in cycling were consistent barriers across distance categories. Adolescents’ perceptions of walking and cycling to school differ based on home-to-school distance. Thus, distance to school needs to be accounted for in active transport to school initiatives, and walking- and cycling-specific barriers tackled.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".