A Cross-Sectional Description of Parental Perceptions and Practices Related to Risky Play and Independent Mobility in Children: The New Zealand State of Play Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The potential for risky play and independent mobility to increase children’s physical activity, and enhance cognitive development and emotional wellbeing has been recognised for some time. The aim of this study was to describe the attitudes of New Zealand parents towards such risky play practices and independent mobility, the barriers preventing them from allowing their children to participate, and how often their children engaged in risky play activities. An online survey comprised mostly of validated scales and standardised questions was completed by a nationally representative sample of 2003 parents. We found that parents had neutral feelings about the risk of injury to their child through play, rather they were concerned about road safety and “stranger danger”. There was strong agreement that there are multiple benefits to be gained from exposure to risk and challenge, and that health and safety rules are too strict. However, 73% of respondents stated that their 5–12 year old child seldom or never engaged in four or more risky activities, and only 14.3% engaged in four or more often or always. While parents agree that their child is likely to benefit from risky play, they do not have the confidence to allow their children to engage in such activities. Future research should address barriers and fears when implementing strategies to facilitate risky 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".