Children's Risky Play and Resilience: Perspectives of Emergency Care Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parents' perspectives on children's risky play can provide researchers with insight into their injury prevention and safety needs and support researchers in understanding how challenging and exciting play may positively shape children's physical, cognitive, and social development. To date, however, the perspectives of parents who witness severe injuries as part of occupational experiences, and who have medical training, are lacking within this scholarship. In this study, we worked with emergency room practitioners to understand their perspectives on children's risky play and resilience. METHODS: A risk and sociocultural theoretical lens informed our approach and we conducted semi-structured interviews with doctors and nurses (n = 56) across Canada who had children between the ages of 4 and 13. RESULTS: Findings from a thematic analysis were threefold: (1) learning to persevere through failure, (2) developing distress tolerance, and (3) supporting child autonomy and independence. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate doctors and nurses can perceive children as more emotionally and physically equipped to cope with stressful and potentially injurious situations across their lifespan if they are exposed to challenging and exciting play during childhood. Further, while the practitioners believed it was important to intervene in play which could result in children experiencing severe injuries, they believed adults should support children in testing their physical and cognitive boundaries during risky play without adult interference.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".