How Accessible and Usable Are Our Neighbourhood Playgrounds for Children Who Have Mobility Restrictions or Use Mobility Devices?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many municipalities across Canada have created neighbourhood playgrounds that are intended to offer children and families a place to play, meet other families, and participate in activities that support the establishment of a healthy lifestyle. Yet the structural designs of many of these neighbourhood playgrounds restrict or eliminate children or adults who have mobility restrictions from participating at them. Structural barriers include the placements of the sidewalks, pathways, ground surface, and elevated frameworks around the playground equipment. This paper discusses the results of examining the municipal neighbourhood playgrounds in one suburban community in Nova Scotia in relation to accessibility and usability features for children or adults with mobility restrictions. Adjusting the current accessibility and usability designs of neighbourhood playgrounds becomes increasingly important in our quest to increase children’s physical activity levels, promote play, and model inclusive practices for all members of society. Environmental barriers contribute to social barriers and social exclusion. Accessibility to public space is a legal right and must be viewed as a community’s moral and ethical obligation. It is critical that all citizens in a community experience inclusive practices and a sense of dignity in their daily living experiences.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".