Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children, Youth and Environments Vol. 22 No. 2 (Winter 2012) ISSN: 1546-2250 Update on The Children’s Physical Environments Rating Scale (CPERS5) Gary T. Moore Citation: Moore, Gary T.. (2012). "Update on The Children’s Physical Environments Rating Scale (CPERS5)." Children, Youth and Environments 22 (2). Since the 1970s, it has been well known that early childhood development and the quality of childcare, preschool, kindergarten, and other early childhood education are related to the quality of the physical environment. Research by the authors and others has found that the quality of the physical, designed environment of early childhood centers—such environmental attributes as size, density, privacy, well-defined activity settings, modified open-plan space, a variety of technical design features, and the quality of outdoor play spaces—is also related to children’s cognitive, social, and emotional development. Based on that research, as well as Piagetian-based developmental theory, a systematic review of previous scales, and child care and preschool standards in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the Children’sPhysical Environments Rating Scale (CPERS) was developed to provide a scientifically reliable and valid assessment instrument. Development and testing of the scale and its subscales involved extensive reliability and validity testing through expert panels and field research in those countries. Two types of reliability were examined: inter-rater and test-retest reliability, and two types of validity: content and construct validity. The reliability and validity research has been disseminated through international conferences and refereed journal papers. A summary paper was published inCYE (2007, 17(4), 24-53). The results of this eight-year 312 program of research confirm the internal consistency, interrater and test-retest reliability, and construct validity of CPERS and confirm its utility for both research and general use in a wide variety of applications. The work was carried out by Gary T. Moore, with major assistance from Louise O’Donnell and Takemi Sugiyama, University of Sydney, Australia. The Children’s Physical Environments Rating Scale (CPERS) has been used for quality assessment, post-occupancy evaluation, basic research on child-environment relations, and comparative cross-country research on the environmental quality of early childhood education facilities. It is now available on-line through the American Clearinghouse on Educational Facilities (ACEF) at http://www.acefacilities.org/Search.aspx?Keyword=CPERS&Pu blisher=&Type=&Role=Early Childhood&Category=Design&Page=0. ...
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".