Impact of Outdoor Play Structures on Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity in Children during Recess: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: It is believed that outdoor play structures lead to more physical activity for kids during school recess. However, the intensity of this activity remains unknown. This study explored whether access to outdoor play structures during recess interferes with children’s physical activity levels. Methods: Forty-one children (8–10 years old) accessed play structures during the afternoon recess but not in the morning for one entire week. To control for temperature differences, the same number of participants from another school who did not access playground structures were invited to participate. Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity (MVPA) was determined using heart rate reserve. Heart rate was recorded using the Fitbit Inspire 2 (San Francisco, CA, USA) for at least three full school days. Wilcoxon signed-rank and Mann–Whitney U tests analyzed within- and between-group differences. Results: The findings show no difference in MVPA when accessing or not accessing outdoor play structures, both within groups [(n = 37) median (25th–75th) 16 min (7–30) vs. 14 min (5–22)] and between groups [(n = 22) 16 min (7–26)]. The weekly MVPA for all participants (n = 59) [172 min (117–282)] was the strongest variable associated with MVPA during recess [t(df) = 5.40 (38), 95% CI 0.04–0.09, p < 0.001]. Conclusion: accessibility to outdoor play structures does not increase MVPA during recess in children aged 8 to 10. Therefore, schools may need various options for children to play during recess, allowing them to accumulate MVPA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".