Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book provides K–8 educators with practical, research-based guidance for implementing—and advocating for!—risky play at school. Children are naturally drawn to risky play—taking physical chances, seeking excitement, and satisfying curiosity—and are more physically active when playing outdoors. Embracing Risky Play at School introduces readers to outdoor play and learning (OPAL) in the kindergarten to middle school years, explains the difference between risks and hazards , presents the concept of “Yes” spaces, and describes how and why risky play supports academic development and student well-being . Zeni and Brussoni, two experts in the field with decades of experience, share research evidence alongside accessible strategies for overcoming common barriers to implementing risky play at school. The Canadian Pediatric Society recommends risky play as a preventative measure for childhood obesity, anxiety, and behavioral issues , and schools have an important role to play in providing access to the unique benefits of risky outdoor play. This book addresses the collective responsibility of adults to support risky play when designing learning environments. Book Features: A clear understanding of what risky play is, and is not, particularly when supervising other people’s children as a professional educator in group learning environments. Guidance for creating conditions and building capacity for risky play in schools, which serves to support the physical, social, emotional, and cognitive growth of children. Links to learning modules that extend chapter content through the authors’ Outside Play website (www.outsideplay.org/).
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".