MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3098166084

Partnering for Outdoor Play: A Case Study of Forest and Nature School Programming in the Context of Licensed Child Care in Ottawa, Ontario.

2020· article· en· W3098166084 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Blair Niblett, Kim Hiscott, Marlene Power, Hanah McFarlane

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of environmental education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipContext (archaeology)Action researchEnvironmental educationPublic relationsEconomic JusticeParticipatory action researchSociologyPolitical sciencePedagogyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case study examines the policy significance of a partnership between two organizations committed to improving children’s learning and wellbeing through the delivery of a forest and nature school (FNS) program offered in the context of a licensed childcare program in the province of Ontario, Canada. The notion of the anthropocene is taken as a theory and practice framework which emphasizes the urgency for developing new educational strategies that respond to the current moment of ecological crisis facing human and more-than-human planetary communities on earth. Methodologically, the case study is taken up through the lens of action research, wherein the leaders of the two partnering organization participated as co-investigators of the project. Findings of the study suggest that best-practice policy in early-years forest and nature school programs broadly include, among others, the following: understanding a continuum of FNS pedagogies, working to influence regulatory disconnections between built and natural play environments, and advancing social and ecological justice values through FNS programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of environmental educationSame topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207