Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risky play considerations currently drive much of the discussions about children’s play (particularly outdoors) and play environments, with praise-filled dithyrambs solidifying its naturalization and benefits for children’s development. Through critical discourse analysis of ten Canadian provincial early-learning and care framework texts, which hold influence over regimes of professional practice and milieu of early childhood education, this article investigates risky play as a responsibility of both children and educators. I argue that narrow conceptualizations of risky play, combined with the unexamined popularization of the construction itself, is harmful beyond simply being insufficient. That is, in the way it is currently understood and promoted, risky play forwards a neoliberal figure of a child obligated to put themselves in pathways of potential harm, and a figure of educator-technician tasked with remaining objective and rational. Through analysis of these figurations, I suggest that dominant discourses around risky play foreclose the formation of pedagogies able to address the density of complex problems of the twenty-first century, precluding the possibilities of early childhood education as a political practice.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.102 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".