MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206136220 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14648469.v1

A photographic inquiry into Reggio inspired natural outdoor environments in Ontario early learning settings

2021· preprint· en· W3206136220 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tanya Farzaneh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOutdoor and Experiential Education
Canadian institutionsSeneca PolytechnicToronto Metropolitan UniversityEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutdoor educationNatural (archaeology)CurriculumPedagogyEarly childhood educationSociologyMathematics educationPsychologyGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative study explores the translation of Reggio principles in 20 Ontario natural outdoor early learning settings. Through visual research methods, digital images revealed the translation of the following principles: the image of the child, the environment as a third teacher and the hundred languages of children in the outdoor environments. Moreover, nature was a predominant element in two ways. First, nature was incorporated in the curriculum and natural spaces. Second, half the sites committed to connecting children to nature through frequent excursions in local green areas. This research positions the potential for practice in creating outdoor early learning spaces by merging both the principles of nature-based education and Reggio inspired pedagogy, in considering compatibility with the Ontario Early Years Framework. This research addresses the current gaps in the literature pertaining to quality outdoor environments, and provides recommendations for a proposed Outdoor Pedagogy for the Early Years.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.017
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOutdoor and Experiential EducationFrench-language works237,207