MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412019718 · doi:10.1093/heapro/daaf101

Promoting health and equity in schools: environmental scan of outdoor learning spaces in Nova Scotia

2025· article· en· W4412019718 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Julie E. Campbell, Michelle Stone, Steve Machat, Hilary A. T. Caldwell, Daniel Rainham, Son Truong, Sarah A. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersUniversity of CambridgeHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaDalhousie UniversityGovernment of OntarioFaculty of Health, Dalhousie University
KeywordsNova scotiaEquity (law)Diversity (politics)Space (punctuation)PsychologyGovernment (linguistics)PedagogyMedical educationGeographySociologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children are increasingly disconnected from nature, particularly within the school setting, despite the potential for schools to influence children's health and well-being. In 2021, government funding allowed for the creation of new outdoor learning (OL) spaces in elementary schools in Nova Scotia, Canada. We conducted an environmental scan to explore the state and impact of this OL funding for children's health and well-being. All Nova Scotia elementary schools (n = 289) were sent an online survey about elements included in their OL spaces, how diversity and accessibility were addressed, perceived benefits to students, and insights about the process. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed descriptively or through content analysis, respectively. Ninety-four (33%) surveys were returned. Most (65%) respondents had or were creating their OL spaces. Outdoor seating with a white/blackboard was the most common design (34.5%). Schools made some efforts to incorporate diversity and accessibility in the designs. Respondents perceived that the OL spaces increased student engagement, movement, and exposure to nature. Schools also noted that clearer communication about the funding was needed, including more school involvement in decision-making, more choice in design, and corresponding professional development for teachers. The OL spaces were perceived to support the creation of inclusive, supportive school environments that promote diversity and contribute to students' overall sense of well-being. Yet, the findings also underscore that the OL space infrastructure is only part of the equation and broader systemic, pedagogical, and cultural supports are essential to enabling meaningful and sustained OL.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion InternationalSame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207