MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135073627 · doi:10.3934/publichealth.2021017

Early childhood educator perceptions of risky play in an outdoor loose parts intervention

2021· article· en· W3135073627 on OpenAlex
Rebecca Spencer, Nila Joshi, Karina Branje, Naomi Murray, Sara Kirk, Michelle Stone

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIMS Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisEarly childhoodContext (archaeology)PsychologyCreativityIntervention (counseling)Mental healthPsychological resiliencePerceptionFocus groupDevelopmental psychologyEarly childhood educationQualitative researchApplied psychologySocial psychologySociologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Free play is important in early childhood and offers physical and mental health benefits. Outdoor play offers opportunity for children to use natural elements and promotes physical activity, among other health benefits, including exploring their environment and taking risks. Risky outdoor play may involve challenges, heights, speed, and the potential for injury, but has been associated with increased physical activity levels, decreased sedentary behaviour, improved mental health, and social benefits. The integration of loose parts, or open-ended, unstructured materials, into play environments, has been associated with positive social behaviours, creativity, and improved problem-solving, confidence, and resilience. As opportunities for risky play in early childhood are determined by adults, including early childhood educators, it is important to understand their perspectives on these types of play. The purpose of this study was to explore early childhood educators' perspectives of risky play, in the context of the Physical Literacy in the Early Years (PLEY) intervention. PLEY was a mixed methods study that aimed to evaluate a loose parts intervention in early childcare settings. This paper used Qualitative Description to explore educators' perspectives. Data were collected from 15 focus groups with early childhood educators. Four themes were identified through thematic analysis. The first explains how risky play with loose parts contributes to evolution in educator perceptions; the second describes how educators' perceptions of risk are connected to institutions and systems; the third illustrates how educators developed strategies to facilitate risky play with loose parts; and the fourth demonstrates how educators perceive risky play as beneficial for children's healthy development. This project highlights societal shifts in play and how loose parts and risky play fit into the ongoing evolution in play, from the perspectives of early childhood educators.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.313 · 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