Does the built environment influence location- and trip-based sedentary behaviors? Evidence from a GPS-based activity space approach of neighborhood effects on older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evidence on the influence of built environments on sedentary behaviors remains unclear and is often contradictory. The main limitations encompass the use of self-reported proxies of sedentary time (ST), the scarce consideration of the plurality of sedentary behaviors, and environmental exposures limited to the residential neighborhood. We investigated the relationships between GPS-based activity space measures of environmental exposures and accelerometer-based ST measured in total, at the place of residence, at all locations, and during trips. METHODS: This study is part of the CURHA project, based on 471 older adults residing in Luxembourg, who wore a GPS receiver and a tri-axial accelerometer during 7 days. Daily ST was computed in total, at the residence, at all locations and during trips. Environmental exposures included exposure to green spaces, walking, biking, and motorized transportation infrastructures. Associations between environments and ST were examined using linear and negative binomial mixed models, adjusted for demographics, self-rated health, residential self-selection, weather conditions and wear time. RESULTS: Participants accumulated, on average, 8 h and 14 min of ST per day excluding sleep time. ST spent at locations accounted for 83 % of the total ST. ST spent at the residence accounted for 87 % of the location-based ST and 71 % of the total ST. Trip-based ST represents 13 % of total ST, and 4 % remained unclassified. Higher street connectivity was negatively associated with total ST, while the density of parking areas correlated positively with total and location-based ST. Stronger associations were observed for sedentary bouts (uninterrupted ST over 20 and 30 min). CONCLUSION: Improving street connectivity and controlling the construction of new parking, while avoiding the spatial segregation of populations with limited access to public transport, may contribute to limit ST. Such urban planning interventions may be especially efficient in limiting the harmful uninterrupted bouts of ST among 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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".