MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nature contact and health risk Behaviours: Results from an 18 country study

2025· article· en· W4410328044 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Leanne Martin, Mathew P. White, Sabine Pahl, Jon May, John Newton, Lewis R. Elliott, Marta Cirach, James Grellier, Gregory N. Bratman, Mireia Gascón, Maria Luı́sa Lima, Mark Nieuwenhuijsen, Ann Ojala, Anne Roiko, Matilda van den Bosch, Lora E. Fleming

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth & Place · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLuonnonvarakeskusUniversity of British ColumbiaHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammePlymouth UniversityChinese University of Hong KongEnvironmental Protection AgencyEconomic and Social Research CouncilUniversity of ExeterUniversity of the Sunshine CoastGriffith UniversityStanford University
KeywordsEnvironmental healthGeographyPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerging evidence suggests that residential greenspace is associated with a lower prevalence of health risk behaviours, but it remains unclear whether these effects are generalizable across countries or different types of nature contact. Using representative cross-sectional samples from 18 countries/regions, we examined the associations between two types of nature contact (greenspace, nature visits), current smoking and everyday drinking. After controlling for a range of covariates, greenspace was inversely associated with current smoking and everyday drinking. Visiting natural spaces at least once a week was linked to a lower prevalence of current smoking, but unrelated to everyday drinking. Increasing residential greenspace could be a promising strategy for reducing multiple health risk behaviours, whilst visit-based interventions may be a more appropriate target for smoking cessation.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth & PlaceSame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207