MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2734817824

A retrospective study of playscapes in the city

2011· article· en· W2734817824 on OpenAlexaffabout
Homan Lee, Nicholas L. Holt, John C. Spence, Carrie Millar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyPsychologyYoung adultMedicineGerontologyDevelopmental psychologySurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reduced involvement in active free play is a major factor underlying low physical activity levels among Canadian children. Adopting a retrospective approach, the purpose of this study was to examine places, memories, and experiences young adults associated with the 'playscapes' where as children they engaged in active free play. Participants were 13 young adults (4 male, 9 female; aged 18 – 21 yrs) who had resided in one large western Canadian city for 10 years or more. They took part in one semi-structured interview (SSI) and one walk-along interview (WAI). During the SSI they were asked about their memories and experiences of play and during the WAI they returned to their childhood play areas and while they walked through the playscapes they were further questioned about their memories of play. Data were transcribed verbatim and each individual's SSI and WAI were subjected to content analysis before establishing common themes across the participants. Results showed that while participants associated numerous social and developmental benefits with play, they also recalled several barriers and safety concerns. Perceived changes in play related to changes to play environments, parent/adult supervision, and accessibility. Hence, whereas some factors appeared to have changed, findings showed familiar contemporary issues (e.g., barriers, safety) also appeared to be concerns in the past. By using a retrospective approach this study helped reveal some factors that have changed and some factors that have remained the same in terms of play over the past decade.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Green Space and Health→French-language works237,207→