Outdoor play and nature connectedness as potential correlates of internalized mental health symptoms among Canadian adolescents
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
Exposures to outdoor environments have great potential to be protective factors for the mental health of young people. In a national analysis of Canadian adolescents, we explored how such exposures, as well as self-perceptions of connectedness with nature, each related to the prevalence of recurrent psychosomatic symptoms. The data source for this cross-sectional study, consisting of a weighted sample of 29,784 students aged 11-15 years from 377 schools, was the 2013/2014 cycle of the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study. We modeled reports of exposure to the outdoors and then perceived connection(s) to nature as correlates of reduced psychosomatic symptoms. Associations varied by sex. Among girls, spending on average >0.5 h/week outdoors was associated with a 24% (95% CI: 5%, 40%) lower prevalence of high psychosomatic symptoms, compared to those who averaged no time playing outdoors. No such relationship was observed among boys. Perception of connection to nature as 'important' was similarly associated with a 25% (95% CI: 9%, 38%) reduction in the prevalence of high psychosomatic symptoms; this association did not differ by sex or age. Our analysis highlights the potential importance of adolescent engagement with nature as protective for their psychological well-being. It also emphasizes the importance of accounting for differences between boys and girls when researching, planning, and implementing public mental health initiatives that consider exposure to the outdoors.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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