Understanding Children’s Perspectives on the Definitions and Importance of Play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ideas about children and play are socially constructed by hegemonic societal values, beliefs, and institutions. Research engages with children’s play in ways that are constructed and reinforced by adults. Therefore, it is important to deconstruct dominant discourses about play because they are used to maintain adult-dominated power stratification and enforce normative beliefs. This study aims to understand how children define, conceptualize, and operationalize play in ways that may diverge from adult assumptions. Focusing on 6-9 year olds in a mid-sized Canadian city, it makes an important contribution to the field, which is overwhelming based on studies conducted in the United States. This study uses a drawing analysis to elicit children’s perspectives, which are frequently ignored in adult-centric research. Five to ten children will be recruited from an afterschool program. The children will draw pictures of themselves playing and be interviewed about their drawings. The results will be interpreted within the paradigms of the new sociology of childhood and playwork. These theories acknowledge the socially constructed nature of children and play, engage with children’s agency, and address the power dynamics that govern adult-child relations. This study does not aim to make predictable or generalizable findings. Instead, this study focuses on eliciting and expressing the opinions and worldviews of the children who participate. Expected results are that children conceptualize play in non-traditional ways that adults do not consider.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".