16. The Impact of an Outdoor Orientation Program on First-Year Student Perceptions of Life Effectiveness and Campus Integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although outdoor orientation programs, as a special type of orientation designed to enhance student retention, are relatively commonplace in the United States – we are not aware of any such campus-wide initiatives in Canada. Research indicates that outdoor orientation programs impact students in a positive way, enhancing academic success, personal development, and integration into campus life. This exploratory, mixed methods pilot study reports on the results of an investigation that administered three pre and post surveys that measured indicators of “Life Effectiveness,” “Sense of Community,” and “Sense of Place” on a group of seven, first-year students who participated on a five-day canoeing trip in the wilderness of Algonquin Park, Ontario, Canada. The program, entitled “Brock BaseCamp,” exposed students to a curriculum that included networking with student facilitators about campus life, in addition to acquiring technical skills of canoeing and outdoor living. Results indicated that students were positively influenced in all three measures and that the Brock BaseCamp experience enhanced their social integration into campus life.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".