Beyond the fence: Exploring forest preschool/school approaches in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The origins of forest preschool/school approaches are attributed to Scandinavian countries, where children can frequently be found playing outdoors in all weathers as an integral aspect of their education programs (Knight, 2013a; Willia1ns-Siegfredsen, 2012). Such approaches are linked intrinsically to Scandinavian culture and landscape, specifically in Denmark, where WilJiams-Siegfredsen (2012, p. 7) describes frilufts/iv, or the 'free air life', as a long-standing cultural tenet. While forest preschools for young children up to the school-entry age of 6 years have been common in Scandinavia for decades, only in the 1990s was the forest preschool approach introduced into the United Kingdom. Since the 1990s, there has been an exponential growth in this approach across both preschools and schools, and internationally in many countries, including Australia, Ca11ada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States (Knight, 2013b). In Canada and the United Kingdom, this growth has recently led to over-arching professional associations, the Canadian Forest School Association and the United Kingdom Forest School Association, which offer guiding principles, practical information, publications, research and collaborative potential.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.031 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".