Children’s rough and tumble play: perspectives of teachers in northern Canadian Indigenous communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ten teachers in kindergarten and grade one classrooms in remote northern Canadian Ojibway communities, and two consultants from a First Nations Student Success Program participated in focus group discussions about the place of rough and tumble and superhero play, and teachers’ roles in preventing relational and physically aggressive play in school. This paper reports on issues related to sociocultural influences on perceptions of play involving objects to which Indigenous children assign implicit roles as guns, and teachers’ concerns about external perceptions of teachers’ roles vis-à-vis rough and tumble play in school. Implications for teacher practice and for teacher education include establishing boundaries and negotiating rules and consequences with students, and teaching problem-solving approaches. Teachers’ expressed need for exposure to research on rough and tumble play in teacher education and professional development initiatives is consistent with the findings of previous research. This study provides perspectives from teachers in a non-mainstream teaching context on a controversial topic with mixed views coming from researchers and media reports.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".