MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388287436 · doi:10.1080/09575146.2023.2276035

Inclusive active play curriculum in pre-service Canadian early childhood education programs

2023· article· en· W4388287436 on OpenAlexaffabout
Leah G. Taylor, Mara Primucci, Maeghan E. James, Kelly P. Arbour‐Nicitopoulos, Patricia Tucker

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly Years Journal of International Research and Development · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Therapy and Development
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteLawson Health Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Early childhoodCurriculumEarly childhood educationPsychologyPedagogyMedical educationDevelopmental psychologyMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While active play in childcare settings is important for children’s development and wellbeing, children with disabilities are frequently excluded from these experiences. This could be a consequence of the pre-service training provided to early childhood educators (ECEs). As such, this study investigated the quantity and content of inclusive active play offered within Canadian post-secondary early childhood education programs. An environmental scan and content analysis were conducted to assess course descriptions for 114 programs. Of the 2,610 courses examined, only 1% captured inclusive active play. Although content on disability inclusion and active play were captured uniquely, courses lacked intersections of these two topics. Future curriculum development is needed to support ECEs in the implementation of inclusive active play. Based on this research, four recommendations were provided. As Canada implements a new national childcare strategy, this study has implications for educators aiming to prioritize the inclusion of all children in high-quality care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarly Years Journal of International Research and DevelopmentSame topicChild Therapy and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207