Playing for health? Revisiting health promotion to examine the emerging public health position on children's play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concerns over dwindling play opportunities for children have recently become a preoccupation for health promotion in western industrialized countries. The emerging discussions of play seem to be shaped by the urgency to address the children's obesity epidemic and by societal concerns around risk. Accordingly, the promotion of play from within the field appears to have adopted the following principles: (i) particular forms of play are critical for increasing children's levels of physical activity; and (ii) play should be limited to activities that are not risky. In this article, we argue that these emerging principles may begin to re-shape children's play: play is predominantly instrumentalized as a means to promote children's physical health, which may result in a reduction of possibilities for children to play freely and a restriction of the kinds of play designated as appropriate for physical health. We argue that within this context some of the social and emotional elements of health and well-being that children gain through diverse forms of playing are neglected. This has implications for health promotion because it suggests a narrowing of the conception of health that was originally advocated for within the field. Additionally, this reveals a curious paradox; despite the urgency to promote physical activity through play, this position may limit the range of opportunities for children to freely engage in play, in effect reducing their activity levels. We propose an example that promotes play for children and better aligns with the conception of health as outlined in the Ottawa Charter.
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 | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".