Retheorising ‘Risky’ Play in a Global Context: Addressing the Safety Needs of Refugee and Displaced Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wealth of scholarship demonstrates the developmental benefits of risky play for children. However, this scholarship has overwhelmingly focused on the experiences of children and their caregivers from Euro-Western nations. It is imperative to explore child and caregiver perspectives on child risk, injury and play in communities where children experience a disproportionate burden of injuries resulting from play such as in refugee communities. For this research, we focused on Syrian refugee camps (n = 3) and villages (n = 4) across Lebanon and conducted semi-structured interviews with children (n = 79) and caregivers (n = 56) to explore perspectives on child risk, injury and play. Our approach was informed through tenets of post-structural feminist theory, and a critical discourse analysis was conducted. Two major discourses were identified: (1) children engage in dangerous and injurious play; and (2) environmental and social barriers limit play opportunities. Findings suggest that the children often experienced discrimination and severe injuries as a result of engagement in play which resulted in long-term financial and physical burdens. These findings challenge Euro-Western risky play paradigms and inform injury prevention and play scholarship with the voices of families from equity-deserving communities.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| 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".