MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405995924 · doi:10.1029/2024gh001101

Access to Healthy Built and Natural Environments and Physical Activity and Screen Time in New Zealand Adolescents: A Geospatial Cross‐Sectional Study

2025· article· en· W4405995924 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

VenueGeoHealth · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersLottery Health ResearchHealth Research Council of New ZealandNational Heart Foundation of New ZealandUniversity of Otago
KeywordsBuilt environmentGeospatial analysisPhysical activityEnvironmental healthLevel designAssociation (psychology)PsychologyScreen timeCross-sectional studyGeographyMedicineComputer scienceMultimediaEngineeringCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The built and natural environment can facilitate (un)healthy behaviors in adolescence. However, most previous studies have focused on examining associations between singular aspects of the environment. This study examined the association between the mixture of health-promoting and health-constraining environmental features in a Healthy Location Index (HLI) and physical activity and screen time among adolescents. This cross-sectional study used data from the Built Environment and Active Transport to School (BEATS) Research Program based in Dunedin, New Zealand. Data from 1,162 adolescents with complete demographic, health behavior and spatial records were included in the analysis. The environment was defined using the HLI based on access to health-promoting (e.g., greenspace, blue space, physical activity facility) and health-constraining (e.g., fast-food outlets) features and their mixture. Quantile g-computation and multilevel mixed effects models, with adolescents nested within schools, examined associations between the environment and the two health behaviors. A positive association existed between meeting physical activity guidelines and access to health-promoting environments (OR = 1.23 [95% CI 1.03; 1.47]), particularly blue space. In addition, the mixture of health-promoting and health-constraining environments was also important (ψ = 1.18 [1.01; 1.37]). However, there was limited evidence of an association between the environment and screen time. We provide evidence of a relationship between health-promoting environments, the mix of health-promoting and health-constraining environments, and physical activity among adolescents. The findings support the hypothesis that the environment has the potential to positively influence healthy behaviors of youth, particularly when it comes to physical activity.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.348 · 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