Associations between walking behaviour and personal and environmental factors in older adults living in a downtown neighbourhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between personal and environmental factors and walking behaviour among older adults.The sample consisted of 60 people aged 65 years or more (mean :7'7 L7.27, range 65 to 92).Perceived environment was assessed using the Neighbourhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEV/S-A, abbreviated version).Physical function was measured using the Functional Fitness Test.Walking behaviour was assessed with pedometers.Three participants had an average number of steps above two standard deviations from the mean, and were considered influential observations.After adjustments for age, health status and physical function, and removing influential observations, increased walking was significantly associated with higher income (þ:0.274,p<0.05).After adjusting for age, health and income, and removing influential observations increased walking was significantly associated with higher physical function (B: 0.300, p<0.05).No association was found between walking and environmental factors after adjustments for personal factors, and removing influential observations.Among this sample, personal factors (age, annual income, and physical function) accounted for 40.7Yo (R2: 0.407) of the variation.The environment explaine d 8J% (R' : 0.087) of the variation after controlling for personal factors.First of all I would like to thank The One who made everything possible: God.All glory and praise.To my family, for love, support, caring, and understanding, and also for giving me the opportunity to study.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".