MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588136011 · doi:10.1080/21594937.2017.1288391

The erosion of play

2017· article· en· W2588136011 on OpenAlex
Patrick Lewis

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Play · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssertionAmbiguityArgument (complex analysis)IdeologySociologyValue (mathematics)CurriculumEpistemologyAestheticsPolitical sciencePedagogyLawPhilosophyLinguisticsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper argues children’s play is being eroded across four distinct areas: commercial media; fear and safety concerns; school curriculum and policy; and ideology. Drawing upon research evidence, theory and practice, the assertion is explored and supported to argue the significant consequences of play, its absence, manipulation and erosion. The argument demonstrates the difficulty of escaping ‘the rhetorics of play’ as articulated by Sutton-Smith [(1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press]. The contestation of play is not new, but what has emerged recently are discussions of play’s value, both in and out of school with emphasis on the importance of play and its contribution to child development and learning. Yet, despite all the research and discussion, there seems to be an erosion of play occurring across several play landscapes with the result of not necessarily a loss of play rather a decidedly narrower view of play.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.343 · 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