Contemporary Mothering and the Provision of Children’s Active Outdoor Play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children’s active outdoor play (AOP) is an unstructured physical activity that takes place outdoors during a child’s free time. Despite its association with health and well-being benefits (e.g. increases levels of physical activity, improves psychosocial skills), growing evidence suggests that children are playing less outdoors in comparison to previous generations (Clements, 2004; Witten et al., 2013). This trend is generating a number of studies aiming to examine its decline. Parents, especially mothers, are identified as significant actors in increasing children’s opportunities for AOP in order to prevent adverse health and developmental outcomes. Although parents have an important role in socializing children to leading healthy lifestyles, few studies have documented their difficulties in providing children with opportunities for AOP. Drawing on a Foucauldian approach, this qualitative study focuses on the social, cultural, and structural factors that shape children’s opportunities for AOP within the family context and examines the salient factors of contemporary motherhood that impact children’s AOP. Twenty-one mothers from the Ottawa-Gatineau region took part in an in-depth semistructured interview. The analysis shows that many aspects of contemporary mothering and the multiple roles occupied by mothers make it difficult to provide opportunities for AOP. A key finding is that mothers struggle to prioritize children’s AOP due to discursive conflicts that stem from their roles as risk managers, time managers, and screen time managers. Results provide crucial data for future initiatives aimed at increasing children’s levels of physical activity within a family setting. By focusing on the lived experiences of mothers, this study provides recommendations to promote AOP despite the challenges of contemporary family life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".