Engaging Nigerian Older Persons in Neighborhood Environment Assessment for Physical Activity Participation: A Citizen Science Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Global organizations are advocating that older persons' voices should guide communities in age-friendly design. An important aspect of age friendliness to enable daily function and health is ensuring that physical activity can occur, regardless of age, within local neighborhoods. Research Design and Methods: = 13) of older adults (60 or older) in Festac Town, Nigeria. The citizen scientists' roles were to assess and identify how different aspects of the neighborhood environment act as supports or barriers to their physical activity participation. They were individually enabled using a tablet-based mobile application called the Stanford Healthy Neighborhood Discovery Tool to record a total of 156 geocoded photos and 151 commentaries of neighborhood environmental features that facilitate or hinder physical activity in and around their neighborhoods. In a guided process, the following occurred: collaborative discussions of findings with other citizen scientists to determine common targets, setting of priority targets for change, and brainstorming strategies and solutions. Results: Facilitators of physical activity included: pedestrian and traffic facilities (e.g., traffic lights, walkways); green areas and parks; multigenerational community features (e.g., programs/facilities); opportunities for social connection (e.g., neighborhood associations, churches); safety of destinations and services; and public toilets. Barriers to physical activity included: hazardous walkways/traffic; noise pollution; refuse, selling of public parks; crime (e.g., kidnapping, criminal hideouts); no safe drinking water; and ageism. The priorities for changes were social connectivity; improved pedestrian and traffic facilities; and green and beautiful environments. Discussion and Implications: In this study, both physical and social aspects of the environment were deemed important for older Nigerians to enable physical activity in their local community. This approach has a promise for age-friendly initiatives seeking local changes by meaningfully engaging older 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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".