The double-edged sword: Critical reflections on traditional and modern technology in outdoor education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The outdoor education experience continues to be influenced by a proliferation of modern technological innovations, most of which have been accepted and even embraced by educators with little inquiry. Seldom do instructors of outdoor programmes consider the impact that modern techniques and equipment can have upon students' learning. This paper argues that in an unexamined adoption of this technology, some of the potential positive impacts for participants can be compromised, including a direct and meaningful connection to the natural world. As such, modern technology has become a possible mediating influence for participants in outdoor education programmes. The paper examines some of the pedagogical issues of modern technology as a mediator of experience as well as several elements of educating in the outdoors with traditional technology. Woven into the discussion is the question of whether modern technology encourages more people to become involved in outdoor activities or merely works toward the separation of humans from the rest of nature.
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 | 0.025 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".