MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410834711 · doi:10.17576/jkukm-2025-37(3)-13

The Relationship between Walkability and The Built Environment: The Bibliometric Analysis

2025· article· en· W4410834711 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohd Firrdhaus Mohd Sahabuddin, Linda Hijriyah, Anuar Alias, Jun Li, Mastura Adam

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Kejuruteraan · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteUniversiti Malaya
KeywordsWalkabilityComputer scienceBuilt environmentCivil engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this research is to map out existing knowledge regarding the relationship between walkability and built environment studies in order to comprehend global trends in this area within four decades between 1976 and 2022 by using two sophisticated tools called VOSviewer and CiteSpace. The issues on the dependence on motorized transportation has been receiving high attention in this 21st century. Keeping up with the high pace of publications on the holistic knowledge is significant. The bibliometric technique provides a more in-depth understanding of the knowledge and anticipates patterns for future study. This study utilizes the core collection of the Web of Science (WOS) database. The data extraction period is set from 1976 to 2022, yielding 2,004 publications. The results reveal a rapid increase of publications. The USA is the most prominent country in exploring the notion in this field, which is followed by Australia and Canada. Furthermore, the built environment, walking, and physical activity are the highly discussed topic during the four decades. The built environment is an underlying factor for walkability within the macroscale and microscale which affect environment, health, and social aspect. Those factors then influence the willingness of people to walk for their daily needs to their destinations. The findings present a development trend and a rigorous framework, which could help scholars and practitioners further investigate this subject in anticipating future development trends and lead to more advanced research in this field.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.038
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal KejuruteraanSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207