Impact of an outdoor loose parts intervention on Nova Scotia preschoolers' fundamental movement skills: a multi-methods randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Development of fundamental movement skills in early childhood supports lifelong health. The potential for outdoor play with loose parts to enhance fundamental movement skills has not been investigated. A multi-methods randomized controlled design was used to determine the efficacy of integrating outdoor loose parts play into Nova Scotia childcare centers (19 sites: 11 interventions, 8 control). Movement skills (n = 209, age 3-5 years) were assessed over a 6-month period to investigate changes in fundamental movement skills over time and between groups. Qualitative data was also collected on the educators' perceptions of outdoor loose parts play. Quantitative data (fundamental movement skills) revealed a non-intervention effect, however, educators spoke of outdoor loose parts play providing opportunities to combine/ repeat movements and take risks; supporting physical, cognitive and socio-emotional (holistic) development; and increasing awareness of children's physical development and how to support it. Our findings demonstrate value in outdoor loose parts play for the development of fundamental movement skills in childcare settings.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".