MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7045439709

Assessing the Associations Between Light Rail Transit (LRT) and Physical Activity: A Systematic Review

2021· other· en· W7045439709 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic transportPublic healthPhysical activityTransit (satellite)Light rail transitInvestment (military)Health impact assessmentPopulationBuilt environment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to growing environmental and population health concerns, many cities worldwide are increasing their investment in public transit systems. Indeed, public transit has many benefits to both individuals and communities: it is an affordable travel mode (especially when compared to car use), and can reduce congestion, improve air quality, and encourage physical activity [1]. For this review, we will focus on one health impact of public transit: physical activity. The relationship between the built environment and physical activity has been systematically reviewed [2, 3], and three papers have specifically reviewed the impact of public transit on physical activity [1, 4, 5]. One systematically reviewed the impacts of building, extending, or improving local public transit options on physical activity and found that public transit investments are associated with approximately 30 minutes of additional walking (or other light to moderate physical activity) per week. No significant relationship between new transit and moderate to vigorous physical activity was found [4]. Another non-exhaustive review of the evidence on transit’s impacts on self-reported physical activity, objectively measured physical activity, health outcomes, as well as the health care costs associated with transit [1]. Finally, an older systematic review examined the extent of association between the use of public transport and time spent in physical activity (walking/cycling to transport stops/stations) among adults [5]. Further, a meta-analysis on rapid transit has been conducted, and found that while transport-related physical activity increased after transit interventions, overall physical activity decreased [6]. The three existing reviews focus on all types of public transit. One form of public transit that has become increasingly popular in recent years is Light Rail Transit (LRT), which tends to have lower capital costs and increased reliability compared with other public transit systems. The meta-analysis did focus on rapid transit, but because it only included studies with natural experiment designs, only five studies were eligible, three of which focused on LRTs. Therefore, we to will conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify studies examining the relationship between Light Rail Transit and physical activity. The primary objective of this review is to assess the evidence of the associations between LRTs and physical activity. Secondary objectives include comparing the evidence across (1) exposure measurements (e.g., living near an LRT vs. occasional use vs. frequent use), (2) outcome measurements (e.g., self-reported vs. device measured vs. direct observation of physical activity), (3) population density of the city under study, (4) population age (e.g., youth, adults, older adults), and (4) the geography of the stations under study, as well as considering the theoretical frameworks used in this work (e.g., socio-ecological), and whether this body of work considers equity (e.g., whether the physical outcomes are distributed equally by sex/gender, SES indicators, age, residential location, etc.). We will derive policy and research recommendations based off the results of the review. We limit our focus to LRTs in Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, as the urban areas of these countries tend to share similar built environment characteristics. In doing so, we expand the scope of others [6] by including all studies focused on physical activity and light rail, regardless of the methodology, and deviate from other reviews [1, 4, 5] by conducting a review of the evidence on the impacts of one specific, and increasingly popular, mode of public transit: LRTs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.011
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→