MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4239070796 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14662728.v1

Does Where You Live Matter? : Physical characteristics of neighbourhoods and Type 2 Diabetes in Toronto ; a cross sectional survey of ethnoracial groups living in St. James Town and Flemingdon Park

2021· preprint· en· W4239070796 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anne‐Marie Tynan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationNeighbourhood (mathematics)ImmigrationCross-sectional studyGerontologyGeographySample (material)TourismPsychologySocioeconomicsEnvironmental healthMedicineSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of neighbourhood on type 2 diabetes among a sample of immigrants attending diabetes education programs in Toronto. Flemingdon Park (FP) has higher overall rates of diabetes than does St. James Town (SJ), even though both areas share similar socio-economic and immigrant profiles. A cross-sectional survey administered to participants of Diabetes Education Programs at Flemingdon and Sherbourne Health Centres asked questions about proximity of resources such as grocery stores, walking, biking trails, parks, access to and availability of recreation sites, public transit, social support and self-reported health status. The results provide individual-level information on the impact of neighbourhood and other social determinants on type 2 diabetes among a sample of immigrants. While the results support the notion that 'where you live' does matter, bigger sample size and further study are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiabetes Management and Education→French-language works237,207→