Children’s knowledge about play-related risk, risk-taking, and injury: A meta-study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk-taking in play has received increased focus in research over the last three decades through the use of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. The purpose of this meta-study was to review the qualitative literature specifically to better understand how children (5–16 years of age) understand the concepts of risk, risky play, and injury in relation to their play experiences. Twenty-two studies were identified for inclusion in the meta-study. Children across studies demonstrated nuanced understandings of risk and risk-taking, identified specific mediators related to their risky play endeavours, and discussed the presence and acceptance of injury in their play pursuits. Children’s knowledge and perceptions often paralleled adult understandings of risk and risky play, but also highlighted children’s risk identification and management abilities. The findings of the meta-study suggest a still greater need for understanding children’s knowledge about risk in relation to play, such as their understandings of safety and how autonomy in risk-taking may augment their physical and cognitive development.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".