Getting around on foot: Older adults’ walking experiences and perspectives on neighbourhood walkability across Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults’ living environments are instrumental in making walking part of their daily lives, as we strive to promote healthy aging. Objective measures, such as WalkScore®, and subjective measures of walkability provide means to grasp the factors that enable or hinder frequent and enjoyable walking. However, there is limited consensus on what factors contribute to mismatch between perceptions of walkability and objective built environment measures, particularly among older adults. We interviewed fifty-eight older adults (65 +) from six Canadian cities to uncover the relationship between their perceived neighbourhood walkability and objective built environment measures. We segmented our interviewee sample into four categories based on their residential WalkScore® and perceptions of neighbourhood walkability. Our thematic analysis provides insight into strategies older adults use to respond to barriers to walking in their environment and walking facilitators they experience in their neighbourhoods. The findings can be of interest to practitioners and decision-makers as they seek to improve walking environments for aging populations, ultimately contributing to older adults’ long-term health and well-being.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it