MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405672137 · doi:10.1080/14729679.2024.2444899

The variability and correlates of outdoor play in preschool-aged children

2024· article· en· W4405672137 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cody Davenport, Nicholas Kuzik, Richard Larouche, Valerie Carson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Therapy and Development
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutdoor educationPsychologyAdventure educationDevelopmental psychologyPreschool educationPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the variability, convergent validity and correlates of outdoor play (OP) in preschool-aged children. Participants were 107 preschool-aged children (3–5 years) and their parents from Edmonton, Canada, and surrounding areas. Children’s OP was measured via a parental questionnaire and the lux feature of ActiGraph accelerometers (n=98). Correlates from various levels of the socioecological framework were measured. Children had significantly higher OP in summer/fall months (versus winter months), on weekend days (versus weekdays), and when parental-reported (versus device-measured). Parental age was positively associated with children’s parental-reported OP on weekend days, and temperature was positively associated with children’s parental-reported OP in summer/fall months. Higher temperature was associated with a higher likelihood of children participating in ≥30 minutes/day of device-based measured OP (versus <30 minutes/day). Implementing interventions to promote OP in all weather, and days of the week, may help reverse the declining trend of children’s OP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Adventure Education & Outdoor LearningSame topicChild Therapy and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207