52 ‘Fear’ as the departure from risky to dangerous play: children’s perspectives on injury, safety, and having fun outdoors in low- to mid-income communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The benefits of risky play, where children are exposed to challenge and thrill, are widely acknowledged in research. These cognitive, social, and physical benefits can consist of increased self-esteem, strengthened fine and gross motor skills, and learning conflict resolution. There is little known, however, concerning when children’s perspectives of and engagement in risky play can turn to dangerous play, where they perceive increased likelihood of experiencing serious injury. Objective In this study, we address the questions, ‘What are children’s perspectives on risky and dangerous play in low- to mid-income communities, and in what ways may experiencing fear shape these perspectives?’ Methods We worked with 13 children from low- to mid-income communities through a multi-method approach consisting of photo-elicitation, go-along, and unstructured interviews, to explore their injury, safety, and play concerns. We employed tenets of narrative inquiry and used thematic analysis to interpret the results and identify patterns of meaning in participant stories and experiences. Results Findings from this study suggest that ‘fear’ plays an instrumental role in shaping children’s perception of risky compared to dangerous play, and the experience of fear can shape how children identify and navigate threats in their physical environments. In particular, we found that when children misjudge their capabilities of navigating obstacles and challenges, they can experience fear that accompanies a heightened awareness of their potential to be seriously injured. They then reassess the threat and interpret the play as dangerous. We use stories shared by children to illuminate the role of fear in this context, including stories of children’s hospitalizations, falls, and how fear they experience can be shaped by residing in low- to mid-income communities. Conclusions Our findings have relevancy for the study of safety, injury, and play in low- to mid-income communities, by expanding understanding of what children fear, why they fear it, and how they practice danger-avoidance strategies in their daily life.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".