The perceptions of play among educators in kindergarten and grade one classrooms
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study focuses on the role of play in primary education, and was \ndesigned to determine and understand the perceptions of play among primary educators \nwho are teachers in kindergarten and grade one classrooms. In attempting to understand \nhow primary educators use play in their classrooms, the following findings emerged. \nEducators struggle in primary grades to support play in the classroom because of a lack \nof a clear understanding of what play is. Further, teachers face several oppositions to \nusing play in the classroom. Much of the opposition arises from a concern for classroom \nmanagement as well as negative parental views towards play. Additionally, the teachers \nfrom this study feel that there is limited support available for them to implement a \ncurriculum that includes play. Despite support from academic research, indicating that \nchildren, particularly in the primary grades, benefit greatly from play, the place for play \nin the curriculum is not secure. In this study, strategies that would assist and support \nprimary educators in using play in their classrooms are suggested.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it