The need for Inuit parents’ perspectives on outdoor risky play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Parents’ perspectives on their children’s outdoor risky play behaviours influence their children’s adoption of safety strategies and their children’s approach to risky and dangerous situations (Brussoni & Olsen, 2011). Over the past decade, researchers have explored many Canadian mothers’ and fathers’ perspectives on this topic; however, to date, there has been a lack of research on Indigenous parents’ perspectives, particularly those of Inuit parents. This lack of research means that Inuit families are unaccounted for in research used to create and promote safety policies and practices in Canada. The present research commentary is the first to address the urgent need for research on northern Canadian Inuit parents’ perspectives on outdoor risky play. Specifically, outdoor risky play is defined, and Inuit children’s outdoor play experiences are compared to non-Inuit children’s experiences. Further, Inuit children’s experiences of injury are discussed to further situate the dire need to work with the most vulnerable population in Canada – Inuit – in child injury prevention research.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".