MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W99258980 · doi:10.5206/eei.v21i2.7677

Parent and Child Perceptions of Grade One Children's Out of School Play

2011· article· en· W99258980 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joanne Lehrer, Hariclia Harriet Petrakos

Bibliographic record

VenueExceptionality Education International · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPerceptionDevelopmental psychologyPreferenceSocial psychologyNeighbourhood (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transition from kindergarten to Grade 1 is marked by a sudden decrease in children’s play time (Broström, 2005; Hartmann & Rollett, 1994). This study sought to examine 69 Montreal-area Grade 1 children’s beliefs about out of school play, as well as their parents’ (N = 56) perceptions of their play. Findings indicate that parents value play for their child’s development and education, for building relationships and self-esteem, for processing emotional experiences, for relaxation, and for fun. Many parents expressed a preference for active outdoor play, as well as pretend and creative play, board games, and puzzles, explaining that they discouraged television and video games, aggressive play, and play with sexual themes. Children reported enjoying active outdoor play, toys, construction and art activities, and video game play, with parents, siblings, friends, and pets. Limitations to play included lack of neighbourhood children, parents or siblings who did not play, and restrictions to inviting friends over.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExceptionality Education InternationalSame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207