Playground Usability: What Do Playground Users Say?
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
Play, specifically outdoor play, is crucial for a child's development. However, not all playgrounds are designed to provide usable space for children with disabilities. The aim of the study was to gain an understanding of the experiences of playground use for children with disabilities and their caregivers. Using a qualitative descriptive design, interviews were conducted with children with disabilities and their caregivers. Interview transcripts were reviewed and coded. The analysis process resulted in three overarching themes. Playground Experiences addressed the sensory experiences that children seek at playgrounds, the importance of creating environments that promote imaginative play and the need to provide an appropriate level of challenge. In the second theme, Playground Usability, participants described barriers that prevent access and features that promote use. The third theme, Inclusivity, focused on equal access and the importance of providing options in design. The Person-Environment-Occupation model was used to frame the findings and to identify practice and research recommendations. Outdoor play is a key occupation of children, and occupational therapists have a role in promoting usable environments for all children.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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