MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7075981292 · doi:10.1177/23328584251362714

Investigating Nature-based Preschoolers Gains in Early Literacy and Select Executive Function Skills

2025· article· en· W7075981292 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAERA Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsLearning Partnership
FundersInstitute of Education Sciences
KeywordsEarly childhoodEarly literacyLiteracyExecutive functionsWorking memoryCognitive developmentCognitionChild development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nature-based education has grown exponentially throughout the United States. However, it has yet to be determined to what extent these programs are preparing children for formal schooling in kindergarten and beyond. This study directly assessed school readiness (i.e., early literacy and executive function) skills of children who attended a nature-based preschool (n = 82; M age = 47.75 months) in comparison to children in a non-nature preschool setting (n = 58; M age = 50.16 months) in the fall and spring of one school year. Nature-based classrooms were shown to spend, on average, two hours more outside than the non-nature classrooms. Children at both locations developed skills in early literacy and some aspects of executive function (e.g., working memory and inhibitory control) at similar rates. Other aspects of executive function, such as behavioral self-regulation, were associated with greater growth for children attending non-nature classrooms. This study suggests high-quality nature-based preschools can be successful at promoting many areas of children’s school readiness but may need to be more intentional when supporting the development of some aspects of executive function.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAERA OpenSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207