MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378605797 · doi:10.1353/cye.2003.0006

Designing for PlayBarbara Hendricks

2003· article· en· W4378605797 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robin Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueChildren Youth and Environments · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicArchitecture and Computational Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Variety (cybernetics)SociologyMAGIC (telescope)Computer scienceHistoryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children, Youth and Environments Vol. 13 No. 1 (2003) ISSN: 1546-2250 Designing for Play Hendricks, Barbara (2001). Aldershot, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate; 267 pages. $75.95. ISBN 0754613208. On the back cover of this volume, the author ispresented as a "specialist play area designer" with 30 yearsexperience. The book itself is presented not as a “how to” book, but asa radically new approach, applying cutting-edge thinking from childdevelopment and child psychology to find innovative design solutions.By challenging the established notions of play provision, and coveringkey sociological, public policy, environmental and design issues, thisbook intends to provides designers with an exploration of, and guideto, designing from a "child's eye" view of the world. As a designer of children's play environments myself, I turned thecover with high expectations, especially as it promises the reader abook that is "beautifully crafted and copiously illustrated withnumerous examples of recently designed playgrounds." The first eight chapters (of 14 in total) of Designing for Playdiscuss a variety of design-related topics, such as play, designhistory, aesthetics, design criteria of society, children anddesigners, and other design issues. Further chapters addressplaygrounds in the context of early childhood institutions, publicparks and schools, as well as current trends in playground design.Closing chapters address the broad topics of "Magic in the Playground"and "Playing with the Future." This leaves only four chapters, lessthan one-third of the book, to deal with the design of specific typesof playgrounds. Moreover, with such an all-encompassing title, one might have expected Designing for Playto cover more than the design of outdoor play areas. Indoor playenvironments such as toy libraries and children's museums areneglected, as are those in 249 public facilities such as airports, railwaystations and shopping centers. Play design in children's institutionssuch as hospitals and special education facilities is a further topicneeding exposure. The book contains no discussion of play design in thedomestic realm where the design message can really come across toparents. Even in the outdoor realm, the book ignores relevant “old”models of contemporary practice such as city farms and adventureplaygrounds. Leaving aside the mismatch between the book's title and content, what does Designing for Playaddress? The book's basic premise is that the field of designingchildren's outdoor spaces not responded to the dramatic culturalchanges of the past 30 years. However, changes in play space designhave occurred, some of which Hendricks indeed discusses, such asadvances in playground safety. Additionally, the author criticizes theinclusion of commercial play equipment on public playgrounds ascontributing to the commercialization of childhood, yet she apparentlyconsults for one of the best known manufacturers and writes sometimesas if she were a lobbyist. The astute reader will deduce early that Designing for Playis a Scandinavian book (translated from the Danish) and its scope doesnot extend beyond Northern Europe apart from occasional references toplayground developments in the United States and Canada. The manyamorphous generalizations made in the book presumably apply to thiscontext; however, there is no explicit reference to the geographiclimitations of the volume. The most interesting project presented inthe book is the Four Seasons Play Garden, the outdoor space of akindergarten in Ring, Denmark. The layout was designed by the authorwith Tom Lindhardt Wils, a Danish artist, play equipment designer, andfounder of Kompan. The kindergarten appears to be an example of theprogressive "outdoors-in-all-weathers" Scandinavian model. However, theauthor does not explain this even though she worked with the teachingstaff to convince them to install an unconventional play environment. 250 I wish Hendricks had devoted more space to such examples. Three and ahalf pages of general description including a single photograph and asmall sketch of the layout tantalized more than delivered useful designinformation- but then, the book was not intended to be a "how to"guide. This is unfortunate. What designers such as myself crave arespecific, technical details about physical design. What was the widthand length of that circular trike pathway? What was the surfacingmaterial? How was surface runoff treated? How was snow clearancehandled in the winter? Which design features supported winter use? Whatprinciples governed the planting design and choice of plant species?How were planted areas protected from foot traffic? How was the kitchengarden laid out? How did children...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.021

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.157 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChildren Youth and EnvironmentsSame topicArchitecture and Computational DesignFrench-language works237,207