A Loose Parts Randomized Controlled Trial to Promote Active Outdoor Play in Preschool-aged Children: Physical Literacy in the Early Years (PLEY) Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Physical Literacy in the Early Years (PLEY) intervention is a randomized mixed-methods controlled trial focused on embedding loose parts materials into the outdoor play spaces of regulated child care centres across Nova Scotia. The aim is to evaluate the efficacy of the PLEY intervention versus standard regulated childcare practice in influencing thoughts and behaviors of children, parents, and educators. METHODS: Participating early child care centres (n = 19) were randomly assigned to intervention or control sites. Intervention sites received loose parts kits at the beginning of the project while control sites received kits upon project completion. The kits included items such as rocks, tree cookies, balls, wood planks, tubes, tires, ropes, and pulleys. Children (n = 183 at baseline) had their physical activity (accelerometers) and movement skills (TGMD-3 and PGMQ) measured before and after the intervention. All centres provided responses to environmental surveys (Go NAP SACC and Site Context Questionnaire), and educators in intervention sites participated in focus group and photovoice sessions. Educators were also provided with a full day professional development opportunity (plus ongoing mentoring) focused on physical activity, physical literacy, outdoor play, risk-taking, and loose parts. Parents participated in an interview addressing active outdoor play, physical literacy, and attitudes towards risk taking during play. DISCUSSION: This study will provide a better understanding of how integrating loose parts materials into outdoor play spaces impacts children's health, and the impact on educator and parent attitudes, beliefs, and understanding around physical literacy, active outdoor play and risk-taking during 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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".