‘There’s not a lot of places for them to go’: rural and remote family perspectives on children’s independent mobility
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children’s independent mobility (CIM) is the freedom of children to move around their neighbourhood or community without adult supervision. The aim of this study was to explore experiences with CIM from the perspectives of children and their parents living in rural and remote areas of British Columbia, Canada. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 parent–child dyads or triads (45 participants). Child participants aged 7–12 were invited to create and describe drawings, maps, or take images of their independent mobility. Artwork and interview transcripts were analysed following an inductive thematic approach and mapped to the social-ecological model. We developed four themes to describe rural and remote family perspectives on CIM: (1) natural places, spaces, and forces; (2) embracing informal and unstructured play destinations; (3) decision-making and knowing when they are ready; (4) neighbourhood and community environments. Children identified several environmental characteristics impacting their independent mobility including wildlife, seasonal weather patterns, and lack of destinations. Parents reported the environment of rural communities, including neighbourhood cohesiveness and people looking out for each other, as being supportive of CIM. To promote CIM in rural and remote areas, efforts should focus on providing education on wildlife encounters, creating safe and interesting destinations for play, and consider children’s safety and connectivity in road design.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it