Elementary School Students’ Likes and Dislikes about Outside, Inside and Meal/Snack Recess
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies on enjoyment of school recess rarely differentiate between gender or the indoor and outdoor settings (and especially not the eating portion of recess or lunch), so the aim of this study was to qualitatively increase understanding about what students specifically like and dislike about recess relative to gender and outside, inside, and meal/snack preferences. Participants were 386 students (203 girls and 183 boys) from grades 4 through 8 in seven Catholic elementary schools within one school district of southern Ontario, Canada. Participants completed an online survey during one of their scheduled classes, wherein they answered several open-ended questions. Two overarching themes emerged from the data, namely that social experiences are vital in shaping recess experiences and that students need opportunities to meaningfully and actively engage in recess. More specifically, for most students, positive social interactions might be compromised more during inside and meal/snack recess than outside recess. Students also generally valued more differentiated activity opportunities during recess, and 3.4% of girls and 5.5% of boys reported feeling unsafe from mean kids during outside recess. Finally, girls may be more susceptible to disliking many traditional outside recess contexts, whereas boys might be more susceptible than girls to being bored and frustrated during inside (and perhaps meal/snack) recess.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".