Children’s Usage of Inclusive Playgrounds: A Naturalistic Observation Study of Play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inclusive playgrounds that are designed to be physically accessible and welcoming to children with disabilities may provide equal and equitable access to play for all children. Using a naturalistic observational design, this study examines children's use of a playground designed to be accessible and inclusive for all ages and abilities. A modified version of the System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities was used to collect child data on observed gender, age, play behaviour types, social interactions, and activity levels. A relatively equal number of female (52%) and male (48%) observations was made, and the majority (96%) of children observed appeared to be under 12 years of age. Most children (71%) were observed to be engaging in active play. Functional play (e.g., climbing, swinging, running) was the predominant play behaviour observed on the playground (88%), and the majority of social interactions were with peers (48%) or an adult (26%). These findings provide information on how children use a playground designed to be inclusive for children of all ages and abilities. This information can be used to help inform the design of inclusive play spaces as well as types of programming that may occur within such 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".