Scoping review of children’s and youth’s outdoor play publications in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Since 2015, interest in the benefits of outdoor play for physical, emotional, social and environmental health, well-being and development has been growing in Canada and elsewhere. METHODS: This scoping review aims to answer the question, "How, and in what context, is children's and youth's outdoor play being studied in Canada?" Included were studies of any type on outdoor play published after September 2015 in English or French by authors from Canadian institutions or assessing Canadian children and/or youth. Articles retrieved from MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus by March 2021 were organized according to eight priority areas: health, well-being and development; outdoor play environments; safety and outdoor play; cross-sectoral connections; equity, diversity and inclusion; professional development; Indigenous Peoples and land-based outdoor play; and COVID-19. Within each priority, study design and measurement method were tallied. RESULTS: Of the 275 articles included, the most common priority area was health, wellbeing and development (n = 239). The least common priority areas were COVID-19 (n = 9) and Indigenous Peoples and land-based outdoor play (n = 14). Cross-sectional studies were the most common; the least common were rapid reviews. Sample sizes varied from one parent's reflections to 999 951 data points from health databases. More studies used subjective than objective measurement methods. Across priorities, physical health was the most examined outcome, and mental/emotional development the least. CONCLUSION: A wealth of knowledge on outdoor play in Canada has been produced since 2015. Further research is needed on the relationship between outdoor play and mental/emotional development among children and youth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".