Motivations and challenges for grandparent–grandchild outdoor play in early childhood: Perception of Canadian grandparents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective We investigated grandparents' motivations and challenges for grandparent–grandchild outdoor play with their 3‐ to 5‐year‐old grandchildren. Background Outdoor play benefits children's and older persons' mental and physical health. Thus, intergenerational outdoor play could benefit both grandparents and their younger grandchildren. Method Semistructured interviews were conducted with 14 grandparents (seven grandmothers and seven grandfathers) from British Columbia, Canada, who lived in the same province as their grandchildren and who were fluent in English. Grandparents were recruited using a convenience, purposive sampling method with social media advertisements, posters in community centers, and word of mouth. Results Using a thematic analysis, we identified six themes: (a) improving grandparents' and grandchildren's health, (b) supporting children's needs, (c) feeling positive emotions, (d) supporting family closeness, (e) aspiring to go outdoors together, and, (f) maintaining the relationship despite the COVID‐19 pandemic. Conclusion Our study emphasizes the importance of outdoor play for grandparents, especially as they develop their relationship with their young grandchildren. Outdoor play provides a unique opportunity for a health‐boosting activity that also strengthens the relationship and family bonds, and supports grandchildren's developmental needs. Implications Our research can contribute to promoting outdoor play across the life span, and more specifically the benefits of outdoor play during early childhood and older adulthood.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".