Scoping review of adult-oriented outdoor play publications in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Since 2015, there has been growing interest in Canada and beyond on the benefits of outdoor play for physical, emotional, social and environmental health, wellbeing and development, for adults as well as children and youth. METHODS: This scoping review aims to answer the question, "How, and in what context, is adult-oriented outdoor play being studied in Canada?" We conducted an electronic search for peer-reviewed articles on outdoor play published in English or French after September 2015 by authors from Canadian institutions or about Canadian adults. The 224 retrieved articles were organized according to eight priorities: 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. We tallied the study designs and measurement methods used. RESULTS: The most common priority was outdoor play environments; the least common were COVID-19 and Indigenous Peoples and land-based outdoor play. Cross-sectional studies were the most common; no rapid reviews were identified. Sample sizes varied from one auto-ethnographic reflection to 147 000 zoo visitor datapoints. More studies used subjective than objective measurement methods. Environmental health was the most common outcome and mental/emotional development was the least. CONCLUSION: There has been a staggering amount of articles published on adult-oriented outdoor play in Canada since 2015. Knowledge gaps remain in the relationship between outdoor play and adult mental/emotional development; the connections between environmental health and Indigenous cultures and traditions; and how to balance promoting outdoor unstructured play with protecting and preserving natural spaces.
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 | 0.025 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.049 | 0.084 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".