Children’s Recess Affect, Enjoyment, Physical Activity, and Opportunities by Victimization, Developmental Level, School Region, and Recess Location
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on school recess has highlighted the need for more integrated and situated knowledge of students’ recess experiences as a function of school and recess context. This study assessed differences in recess-specific negative affect; enjoyment and opportunities (indoors and outdoors), and physical activity and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) during outdoor recess as a function of victimization, developmental level (grades 4-6 or 7-8), and school urbanization (Greater Toronto Area) or in a small more isolated city or town within southwestern Ontario, Canada. Online surveys were completed during school by 445 students (209 boys; 236 girls) in grades 4-6 (n = 266) and 7-8 (n = 179) in 11 government-funded schools (four public in the GTA and seven Catholic in smaller cities and towns). MANOVA results revealed main effect differences by recess victimization, developmental level, and school urbanization, Students reporting victimization had significantly higher negative affect; lower recess, physical activity, MVPA, opportunities, and enjoyment in outdoor recess; and lower opportunities for play during indoor recess. Students attending school in the Greater Toronto Area were significantly higher in negative affect for recess and in enjoyment and opportunities for play during indoor recess. Finally, students in grades 4-6 were statistically higher than those in grades 7-8 in each of the measured variables except for negative affect. These findings help illuminate specific insight into the potential role of victimization, recess location (indoors or outdoors), developmental level, and school urbanization on students’ school recess experiences.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".