Bibliographic record
Abstract
Walkability, a measure of how well-suited an area is to walking, has often been quantified through walkability index audits. This study aims to compare the indices of Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS), Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index (PEQI), and Walk Score in the study area of the James Kennedy Elementary School catchment zone in the Township of Langley, BC. Our objectives were to better understand how well these indices are correlated, how they differ in their factors and results, and in what ways they could be improved. Our results indicated that in the James Kennedy Elementary School catchment (Langley, BC), the PEDS and PEQI scores, which both place an emphasis on physical surroundings, were highly correlated (r = 0.601; p = 0.000). In comparison, Walk Score, which focuses on accessibility to services, showed some degree of correlation with PEQI (r = 0.333; p = 0.003), but was not significantly correlated with PEDS (r = 0.148; p = 0.189). To create a holistic walkability index, we recommend that the index should incorporate qualities of the built environment, accessibility to services, as well as resident perceptions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".