Comparison of spatial approaches to assess the effect of residing in a 20-minute neighbourhood on body mass index
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beliefs that neighbourhood environments influence body mass index (BMI) assume people residing proximally have similar outcomes. However, spatial relationships are rarely examined. We considered spatial autocorrelation when estimating associations between neighbourhood environments and BMI in two Australian cities. Using cross-sectional data from 1329 participants (Melbourne = 637, Adelaide = 692), spatial autocorrelation in BMI was examined for different spatial weights definitions. Spatial and ordinary least squares regression were compared to assess how accounting for spatial autocorrelation influenced model findings. Geocoded household addresses were used to generate matrices based on distances between addresses. We found low positive spatial autocorrelation in BMI; magnitudes differed by matrix choice, highlighting the need for careful consideration of appropriate spatial weighting. Results indicated statistical evidence of spatial autocorrelation in Adelaide but not Melbourne. Model findings were comparable, with no residual spatial autocorrelation after adjustment for confounders. Future neighbourhoods and BMI research should examine spatial autocorrelation, accounting for this where necessary.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it