MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387059412 · doi:10.1177/00139165231201611

Contributions and Limitations Walk Score <sup>®</sup> in the Context of Walkability: A Scoping Review

2023· review· en· W4387059412 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Behavior · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWalkabilityOperationalizationConceptualizationMetric (unit)Context (archaeology)Scope (computer science)Construct (python library)PsychologyBuilt environmentApplied psychologyComputer scienceEngineeringGeographyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Walkability is a critical component of built environments, yet there is still diverse conceptualization and measurement of the construct. The Walk Score ® metric is one measure of walkability, which is widely used in scholarly, industry, and public domains. With increased interest in the use of Walk Score ® as a research tool, it is necessary to examine the operationalization and scope of the measure. This scoping review examined how researchers utilized Walk Score ® in walkability research, with specific attention to identifying limitations related to health outcomes as well as the use of the metric in non-health research contexts. Findings from the review provide a novel and critically nuanced understanding of how the assumptions and limitations of Walk Score ® are addressed relative to socio-ecological aspects of walkability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.244 · 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