MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1874141042 · doi:10.1093/heapro/dav102

School recess, social connectedness and health: a Canadian perspective

2015· article· en· W1874141042 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lauren McNamara, Paige Colley, Nicole Franklin

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion International · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBelongingnessSocial connectednessLonelinessSocial isolationPsychologyFeelingCharterMental healthPublic relationsSociologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children need opportunities to establish positive social connections at school, yet many school playgrounds are challenged by social conflict that can undermine these connections. When children's social needs go unmet, the resultant feelings of loneliness, isolation and self-doubt can cumulatively lead to mental and physical illness. Because recess is typically the only time during the school day that children are free to socialize and play, we propose a more thoughtful way of thinking about it: from the lens of belongingness. Schools are, historically, designed for instruction. We argue, however, that we need to attend to children's social needs at school. We highlight current research from social neuroscience, belonging and social connectedness in order to delineate the pathways between daily school recess and developmental health trajectories. We then consolidate an array of research on play, social interaction and school change to suggest four areas that could benefit from consideration in research, practice and policy: (i) the culture of recess, (ii) the importance of healthy role models on the playground, (iii) the necessity of activities, options and variety during recess and (iv) the significance of space and spatial layout (indoor and outdoor). We bridge our discussion with the conception of health as described in the Ottawa Charter and emphasize the need to build alliances across sectors to assist schools in their efforts to support children's overall health needs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0220.013
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.364
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 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

Citations45
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion InternationalSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207