Promoting Health through Accessible Public Playgrounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every child, irrespective of socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or ability, deserves the fundamental right to experience play, which is a powerful and enriching activity that fosters their physical and mental health. Regrettably, most public play spaces hinder the complete inclusion of children with disabilities, with the main reason being a lack of universal accessibility. This study identified existing international and Canadian policies and community best practices related to inclusive playgrounds, and gathered stakeholders' opinions on the present condition of playgrounds, including challenges faced by children with disabilities and recommendations to make playgrounds inclusive. The questionnaires were completed by 97 participants. In addition, 10 individual interviews and three focus groups were performed. Ten policy documents and five community best practices were found. Our investigation identified factors that influence the design and implementation of inclusive playgrounds, categorized into three main areas: physical, social, and political environments. The results indicate that children with disabilities lack opportunities to engage fully in the physical and social aspects of playgrounds and spontaneous play activities with their peers. Notably, children with multiple disabilities may not feel welcomed or included in existing public play 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".