Comparing Classroom Context and Physical Activity in Nature and Traditional Kindergartens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growing interest in nature-based learning has resulted in an increasing number of nature schools despite a limited understanding about what kind of instructional approaches are employed or how these approaches affect children's physical activity. The purpose of this exploratory single-observer study was to use naturalistic observations to compare how the instructional context of nature-based and traditional kindergartens affected students' gross body movement and specific activity types, as well as to explore how the structure of these classroom environments influenced students' physical activity. Participants included 81 students attending three nature-based and traditional public kindergartens in Western Canada. Children in nature kindergartens engaged in more slow-easy, moderate, and vigorous gross body movements and a greater breadth of specific activity types than peers in traditional kindergartens. Nature kindergartens provided more opportunities for students to make choices, engage in unstructured activity, and participate in free time than traditional kindergartens. Overall there was more variability across nature kindergarten classrooms than across traditional kindergartens.
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) | 0.000 | 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".